Re: [ubl] Agenda for Pacific UBL TC call 26|27 September 2005

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2005-09-26 09:14 -0700, jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:
>ACTION ITEM REVIEW
>
>    ACTION: GKH to write up the proposed methodology discussed in
>    the Pacific TC call 9/21, including the distinction between
>    subclasses 2a and 2b, and prototype the next version, keying on
>    each datatype/information item pair.

At last week's teleconference we distinguished three kinds of code 
lists and discussed what process might happen between trading 
partners using instance of UBL schemas.

Code lists of type 1 will have all enumerations defined in the UBL 
W3C Schema expressions and code lists of type 2 will have no 
enumerations defined in the UBL W3C Schema expressions.  Type 2 code 
lists comprise two subclasses: subclass 2a are those that are not 
enumerated in the W3C Schema expressions because it is assumed that 
the values are provided by a code list maintainer such as ISO and 
subclass 2b those that are not enumerated in the W3C Schema 
expressions because it is assumed that codes will be provided by the user.

An example of the subclass 2a variety is CountrySubentityCode, for 
which an ISO specification exists but is too large (upwards of 30 
thousand entries) to be instantiated as a single code list. An 
example of the subclass 2b variety is TaxTypeCode, which is different 
for every trading partner and for which there does not exist 
standardized values.

The UBL W3C Schema expressions can be used to validate the lexical 
structure and the actual values in code lists of type 1, but only the 
lexical structure of values in code lists of type 2.  Using 
assertions as a supplement to the W3C Schema expressions, trading 
partners may need to agree to subset the coded values they are 
constrained to use in code lists of type 1 and specify the available 
values they could use in code lists of type 2.

Trading partners must, then, be able to agree on sets of code lists 
values and the associated locations in UBL documents where these sets 
of values are asserted to be present.

Using a standard format, such as the proposed genericode structure, 
trading partners can agree on the set of values for a particular 
context.  Two different subsets of a given published code list can be 
supported by two separate expressions of a genericode structure, each 
with the different set of allowed values.

The FPSC/HISC work has published XPath expressions for all of the 
contexts of information items (i.e. elements and attributes) possible 
in all instances of the UBL W3C Schema expressions.  At the least, 
coded values are associated by a data type and an information item, 
though more context may be needed if trading partners need to agree 
on different sets of values from the same code list when used in 
different contexts.

Using the XPath files the committee has already generated for UBL 
users and published in 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200509/msg00091.html an 
exhaustive list of all contexts of the use of type 1 and type 2 code 
lists.  Alternative presentations of this list are being considered 
to be useful tools for UBL users.  Trading partners can then review 
all of the contexts and determine which genericode files are to be 
used in which contexts.

This could be a one-to-many relationship, where one genericode file 
is used in multiple contexts or where one context could have values 
from multiple genericode files.

It is proposed this association of context and genericode file can be 
formalized in an XML instance agreed upon by two trading partners 
according to a structure published by the UBL committee, and 
exchanged in a package of files that can be input to a process to 
produce two reports: (1) a human legible summary of contexts, 
genericode files, and possibly values themselves from these files, 
and (2) a ISO/IEC 19757-3 Schematron expression of the assertion of 
the values in the contexts to be used as a supplemental pass on an 
XML instance.

Thus, the first pass using the standardized W3C Schema expressions 
ensures the lexical pattern of coded values is correct in addition to 
all of the structure of the UBL instance, and the second pass using 
the Schematron expressions from these exchanged files between parties 
ensures the coded values themselves are in the constraints asserted 
by the agreement between trading partners expressed in the 
agreed-upon "context/coded value" XML instance.

A working prototype is being developed.  Any help would be 
appreciated if members could send me example instances to use as 
examples to be validated, which contexts in these instances could be 
used for examples, and genericode files of values themselves.  I'll 
try to work with Tony's files that create genericode files.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

. . . . . . . . Ken


--
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal