SV: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl-sbsc message






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

--

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








Subject: SV: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context




From: "Martin Forsberg" <>
To: "Stephen Green" <>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:41:26 +0100






Title: Re: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context






Hi,
 
I agree with you Stephen. The context 
categories should not be mandatory when defining contexts but they give a 
good guidence. You say that more than just contexts should be catered for, can 
you elaborate on this?
 
Regards,
/Martin Forsberg
 
 

 



Fr�n: Stephen Green 
[mailto:]
Skickat: fr 2006-02-17 
15:58
Till: Martin Forsberg
Kopia: 
; 
�mne: Re: 
[ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting 
context



Not being able to get to PSC meetings, I'd just say that I've 
always
agreed with this. But I'd add that subsets needn't imply a 
particular
context - they might but they can be orthogonal to context 
(depending
on how you view/define context too) - IMHO. So maybe more than 
just
context should be catered for.

Thanks

Stephen 
Green


On 17/02/06, Martin Forsberg <> 
wrote:
>
>
> Dear PSC (and 
SBSC),
>
>
>
> In the ongoing work within the Northern 
European working group on
> e-procurement an issue has come up that we 
need to find a solution for. We
> are developing and defining a subset for 
a couple of common business
> processes and business rules. The problem, 
in a nutshell, is that we can't,
> by just looking at a document instance, 
see what business process/context
> the instance belongs to. We need to 
identify the context by looking at the
> instance to decide what business 
rules (schematron), subset schema and
> optionally what work flow to 
apply. The Small Business Subset SC has
> developed a great method of 
defining context specific subsets, but the
> document instance (e.g. the 
invoice) doesn't reflect it.
>
>
>
>
>
> One 
of many solutions:
>
>
>
> A new BIE called "Document 
Context" of type URI or Identifier is added on
> document level 
(0..1).
>
>
>
> By adopting the UN/CEFACT context 
categories an URI or Identifier can be
> 
built.
>
>
>
> Example: 
urn:northerneurope:businessprocess123 or
> 
SE:OrderToInvoice
>
>
>
>
>
> From the 
cefact ndr.
>
>
>
> • Business Process Context Value: A 
valid value describing the Business
> Process contexts for which this 
construct has been designed. Default is 'In
> All Contexts'.  
(BusinessProcessContextValue)
>
>
>
> • 
Geopolitical/Region Context Value: A valid value describing the
> 
Geopolitical/Region contexts for which this construct has been designed.
> 
Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> 
(GeopoliticalOrRegionContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Official 
Constraints Context Value: A valid value describing the Official
> 
Constraints contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default 
is
> 'None'.  
(OfficialConstraintContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Product 
Context Value: A valid value describing the Product contexts for
> which 
this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> 
(ProductContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Industry Context Value: 
A valid value describing the Industry contexts for
> which this construct 
has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> 
(IndustryContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Business Process Role 
Context Value: A valid value describing the Role
> contexts for which this 
construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> Contexts'.  
(BusinessProcessRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Supporting 
Role Context Value: A valid value describing the Supporting
> Role 
contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> 
Contexts'.  (SupportingRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • 
System Capabilities Context Value: A valid value describing the Systems
> 
Capabilities contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default 
is
> 'In All Contexts'.  
(SystemCapabilitiesContextValue)
>
>
>
>
>
> 
I don't know how precisely the construct of the URI/Id is to be defined 
by
> us or if it is up to the subset-groups to decide on 
this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I can't 
participate on Monday's conference call (PSC). Please
> let me know if I 
need to clarify the issue.
>
>
>
> Best 
Regards
>
> Martin Forsberg
>
> SFTI (Single Face To 
Industry, Sweden)
>
>
> 
________________________________
>
>
> From: Martin 
Forsberg
> Sent: den 13 februari 2006 22:01
> To: 
''
> Subject: Context in UBL document 
instances
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I 
promised to get back to the SC with some background on the 
context-problem
> we see in the northern European working group. I will 
try to discuss with
> the rest of the group before sending you a 
suggestion of a solution. I've
> tried to explain the problem to some 
people not in to the UBL details (see
> the attached document). I think it 
might give some background information on
> the 
problem.
>
>
>
> In the attached document I outline five 
different solutions and the one that
> I think is the best is number 3 (to 
use a new BIE).
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Martin 
Forsberg















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

--

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