Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers?

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl-ndrsc message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers?

From: "Lisa-Aeon" <>

To: "Danny Vint" <>, <>,  "Ubl-Lcsc" <>

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:36:28 -0500

Okay, I am flogging the donkey here.  I realize the rules we had created
caused more problems than they solved, but....

I am not comfortable with generated containers, but I do believe we still
have too flat a model.  By trying to have a one to one relationship from
model to XSD, we are missing something in the middle (which is going make
for better XML) that will allow the use of, funtional area type containers,
less problematic.

I think our spreadsheet tool has actually hurt us a lot here, it does not
allow for 3D modeling and was never meant for that.  By using a spreadsheet
to model our library we have painted ourselves into a corner that is
difficult to get out, and we knew that going into this.

I am hoping that the work we did in Montreal and have done since of
developing containers within structures that we already had, but had created
more singularly will continue.

I like Dan's idea of the <OrderDetails> containing the details of the order,
like buyer, seller, PO numbers, etc. and <Order> containing the actual line
items or what is being ordered.  It is think kind of containerization I was
aiming at from the very beginning, and this kind of containers that will
make the use of UBL easier to the developers and implementors.

If you have an order with 1,000 line items, having them all at the same
level at the OrderDate, PONumbers, etc does not allow for easy use, human
readability, or ease of implementation.  We do have to think about the
everyday business person who is going to be using UBL from XSD schema and
needs to be able to quickly get up and running.

Lisa