Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is needed

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

At 2007-02-09 09:28 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
>Perhaps, Ken, it would be different when it is all just different
>BBIEs for a common set of core components. This then would
>be a context specific implementation of the same BIEs and CCs.
>CCTS's harmonization and conformance emphasis is on the
>model rather than the implementation in XML.

Fine, but that *isn't* UBL.

>But I agree, this isn't strictly what UBL might decide to define
>as a customization, but I thought that decision hadn't yet been
>made.

It was made when the committee decided that the only normative 
artefact in UBL is the set of W3C Schema expressions of document 
vocabulary constraints.  The model informs the definition, but the 
specification is clearly the XML vocabulary, namespaces and all.

>I personally think such decisions where possible should
>be made, preferably, in the light of real implementation experience
>- emphasising usability of the rules decided.

I've heard this refrain from XML and SGML vendors for 14 years, and 
such things were said long before I found myself in this scene.  For 
a while I worked for a vendor and I spouted such things myself.  But 
changing a specification just to suit a tool is not considered good form.

>The breach here is
>not with the UBL model or the BBIEs and CCs but with the NDR.
>I don't see a problem, in terms of UBL as an implementation of
>CCTS (or a standard soon to be merged with CEFACT's work),
>with alternative NDR implementations of the same BBIEs and CCs.
>I think that is the whole essence of CCTS. But yes it isn't UBL
>in the sense of UBL's current specifications, nor does it pretend
>to be. But it does depend on real life implementation requirements
>for which I believe CCTS is sufficient and so are the BBIEs of UBL
>but not yet the NDR. It's essentially an alternative but adequately
>interoperable NDR essential for certain contexts.

I disagree.  The normative UBL W3C Schemas were created by the NDR 
but, again, the schemas are the definitive "what is UBL?" 
specification of the work we are doing.

We cannot call anything else "UBL" or a "UBL Customization" for fear 
of confusing the user community.  And, as I said, I've been working 
especially hard on defining UBL customizations per our minuted 
definition, and I've been working hard at maintaining all of the 
namespace issues.  The result is that the customizations I'm working 
on *are* instances of standard UBL.  The instances you are presenting 
are not, and they should not be called UBL or our user community will 
rebel with confusion.

>I do apologise as I realise I'm asking a lot and taking a big chance
>of outright rejection by UBL, though perhaps not by CCTS. That's
>if I press that this be an actual implementation in conformance
>with certain standards (like CCTS) and with the UBL model/BIEs.

This sidesteps the issue that the normative specification is the set 
of W3C Schemas and namespaces.

I'm sorry, Stephen, but this is just too sensitive ... if you give 
David Lyon that catalogue instance and call it "UBL", and he tries to 
run that instance through *any other* UBL-based application, that 
instance will be rejected.  What is he to think of the community 
coherence and standardized specification?

>My fallback would be to just hide this from external visibility in
>the application away from the collaborations but that seems a bit
>cowardly of me so I'm trying hard not to use that approach unless
>I have to.

I don't know what you are trying to say there.

Come up with any other name, but please don't call anything that 
doesn't validate against the UBL Schemas "UBL", because it isn't.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

>All the best
>
>Stephen Green
>
>Quoting "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>:
>
>>At 2007-02-09 06:11 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
>>>I just got to a fairly stable state with a customization of
>>>the UBL Catalogue for an opensource price list product.
>>
>>I'm very sensitive to this being called "a customization".  The
>>committee has already defined "a customization" and an instance of a
>>customization must also be an instance of UBL:
>>
>>   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200606/msg00095.html
>>
>>An instance with no namespace or only one namespace is not an instance
>>of UBL, so I feel very strongly this cannot be called a customization.
>>I'm investing a lot of time into what I believe the committee calls
>>"customization" and this is really muddying the waters.
>>
>>>After
>>>making a schema as previously mentioned with zero namespaces
>>>(or at most one)
>>
>>Then it isn't UBL.
>>
>>>and just one schema file I went on to
>>>customise the Catalogue proper UBL schema files too. Both
>>>can then be used but I made the single-file schema more like
>>>the UBL proper schema with closer to identical instances by
>>>starting the element names with 'cbc.' or 'cac.' as below
>>>
>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>><Catalogue xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>>>
>>>xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="PriceList-STUDR-UBL-CatalogueSubset-v0-2.xsd">
>>>        <cbc.UBLVersionID
>>>schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.UBLVersionID>
>>>        <cbc.CustomizationID
>>>schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.CustomizationID>
>>>        <cbc.ProfileID
>>>schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ProfileID>
>>>        <cbc.ID schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ID>
>>>        <cbc.IssueDate>1967-08-13</cbc.IssueDate>
>>>        <cac.ProviderParty>
>>>                <cac.PartyIdentification>
>>>                        <cbc.ID
>>>schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ID>
>>>                </cac.PartyIdentification>
>>>...
>>>
>>>It isn't ideal (much better if I could somehow use the prefixes with
>>>just one namespace but that seems to be treated as invalid in the
>>>instances you have with UBL's schema design).
>>
>>I don't know what you are saying here ... there are a number of
>>namespaces in a UBL instance.
>>
>>>It does work so far
>>>though and a simple transformation both to and from UBL proper
>>>instances is made possible while allowing validation against a
>>>necessarily simpler schema. Reiterating:- that's a schema with no
>>>more than one namespace and no more than one module/physical file.
>>
>>That isn't UBL ... if the tools don't accommodate the definition of the
>>data, then please change the tools, not the definition of UBL.
>>
>>>I attach a copy of this baseline package with
>>>1. custom UBL schemas (note the simplified qualified datatypes)
>>>2. single file schemas (STU, STUDR)
>>>
>>>There are corresponding view only XForms thrown in for those who
>>>have an XForms viewer (try Firefox 2 with XForms extension, say).
>>>
>>>CAM would be used to formally and more properly define the UBL
>>>customization.
>>
>>Can you please find another word for this?  This is not "UBL
>>Customization", and we have tried to be careful and we are at an
>>important juncture as we start deploying customizations.
>>
>>If we use this word for what you are doing, then I'm very concerned
>>about how all of our efforts may become fragmented and confusing to our
>>new user community.
>>
>>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken


--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and 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