[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Question regarding ebBP
something is confusing me about this request. probably because i am unclear on the use of "logical document". firstly, what do they mean by "logical"? my understanding of a logical document is that it is an abstraction of a physical one. this doesn't fit with the rest of the disucssion which deals with physical artifacts. secondly, do they mean "logical document" or "logical document model"? a logical document would be an abstraction of an instance. a schema is not a logical (or physical) document - it is a model of a physical document. so we can say (in a process definition), "here is a logical document" (the idea of an invoice instance) but what you are describing is "here is a physical document as expressed by this schema (and other stuff)" from what you describe, i first thought that when ebBP says "logical document" they expect a model of a logical document. this may be a UML model, and/or a UBL spreadsheet, and/or a narrative description and/or an abstracted schema. however, the artifacts we know as UBL Invoice schema is not a logical model of anything. however, your request clearly wants a physical document model - not what the term "logical document" implies. Stephen Green wrote: >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) > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]