Unless the intention of the suggestion is to have a container for what
we have for document types, e.g.:
<orders>
<order>
...
</order>
<order>
...
</order>
</orders>
But would a raw container with no further metadata or even real data
be of much use? I'm not sure.
On 04/15/2004 08:56 PM, Tim McGrath wrote:
> you are certainly correct in recognizing the xCBL heritage - it was our
> starting point.
>
> we also agree with your comments on sets of documents being exchanged.
> however, this is mechanism best left to the transport, routing and
> packaging layer of the exchange protocol (eg. ebXML MS). as all such
> system handle this differently, it is just adding to the confusion to
> suggest it be defined (once again) in the content vocabulary.
>
> wrote:
>
>> Comment from:
>>
>> Hi took a look at the UBL v1 beta and notice that it is very similar
>> to xCBL. I did work on and help define xCBL 3.0.
>>
>> A suggestion to you is for all the business documents you need to
>> provide a way to send a LIST of the same type of document. One of the
>> limitation of xCBL is that transact one document at a time. We the
>> business need to send a batch of documents of the same type.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
>> , or visit
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
