OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Question regarding ebBP


I was asked on the last ebBP (ebXMl Business Process) TC 
call to put a request to UBL members:


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'.


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]