[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Question regarding ebBP
Greetings, I was asked on the last ebBP (ebXMl Business Process) TC call to put a request to UBL members: Background We have been looking at how to use the latest public review draft of the ebBP version 2.0.1 to specify, in particular, for example, UBL logical documents in a business process. By logical documents is meant not so much the various imported XSD schemas necessary, say, among other schemas, etc in a document but the overall document such as a UBL Invoice. However I have commented that in order to specify what is meant by that logical document, in a real, typical situation, it would be necessary to specify more than just the document schema (e.g. ...UBL-1.0-Invoice.xsd) but also other artefacts defining the document such as any formal subset and possibly a set of codelists - most of which might not necessarily take the form of XSD schemas but could include Schematron schemas and other XML documents. These together would constitute the definition of the logical business document, though usually the main artefact would be, in UBL's case, the document XSD schema. ebBP indeed provides several occurances of an element //Specification for each logical document to cater for this. The 'Specification' element in ebBP 2.0.1 so far has attributes for 'location' and 'type' of a schema or other document-defining artefact. Also there is a 'targetNamespace' attribute which is optional and obviously applies primarily to those types of artefact which include the specifying of a targetNamespace. I have commented that it would make sense to cater for artefacts which do not have their own, specified targetNamespace by adding a further attribute to allow the specification of an appropraite identifier for these in addition to the 'location' and schema 'type'. Request My example backing up my comment would likely be the UBL Small Business Subset which has its own identifying urn but does not provide any namespace other than the corresponding UBL document targetNamespace. Would anyone provide another example, perhaps for codelist documents or the like, either for UBL or any EDI-related situation? Such an example might include the attributes 'location' and a new attribute, say called 'ID' to point a 'Specification' element (in an ebBP definition instance) to one of several artefacts which define a logical business document. Perhaps a set of Specification elements could together be provided to define a single logical document. The more realistic the better I guess. Maybe the 'location' attribute would in some cases be sufficient or just that and the optional 'targetNamespace' attribute, if appropriate. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. All the best Stephen Green (as ebBP TC/UBL TC liaison)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]