[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Agenda for Pacific UBL TC call 26|27 September 2005
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]