AW: [ubl] FW: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: AW: [ubl] FW: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0




From: "Stuhec, Gunther" <>
To: "''" <>, ,       
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:29:16 +0200






Title: Nachricht



Hello all,
 
I made a mistake in my 
starting text. The right text is: 
We have reviewed the OASIS Universal Business 
Language (UBL) V1.0 in detail and we're strongly not in favor with the statement: "These 
document assembly models are then transformed in accordance with UBL Naming and 
Design Rules into W3C XSD schema syntax.". 
 
Kind regards,
 
    
Gunther


  
  -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von:  
  [mailto:]
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Juni 2004 
  13:56
An: ; 
  
Betreff: [ubl] FW: [ubl-comment] Review 
  and comments of OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0


  
  Folks,
   
  Gunther sent this in last week.  Given the nature of the 
  comments, we need to ensure we address these as part of our review 
  process.  I would like these added to the issues list.
   
  Mark

  
  
  
  From: Stuhec, Gunther 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Fri 6/18/2004 3:05 
  AM
To: ''
Cc: Von Riegen, 
  Claus
Subject: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS Universal 
  Business Language (UBL) V1.0


  
  Hello all, 
  regrets for sending our comments after the 
  deadline. I was in vacation, therefore I couldn't sent our comments earlier. I 
  hope you'll still recognize our comments.
  We have reviewed the OASIS Universal Business 
  Language (UBL) V1.0 in detail and we're strongly in favor with the statement: 
  "These document assembly models are then transformed in accordance with UBL 
  Naming and Design Rules into W3C XSD schema syntax.". We compared the schemas 
  of the UBL libraries with the rules of wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-V1pt0Draftp and have 
  seen a high number of discrepancies. The following list shows only the most 
  serious discrepancies:
  - The overall schema structures are not based on 
  the rules of chapter 3.1.
- The namespaces 
  are not based on the namespace rules of chapter 3.4.2 (Namespace Uniform 
  Resource Identifiers).
- Each attribute 
  names do not based on the conventions of chapter 4.4 (Attribute Naming 
  Rules).
- The structure of the annotations 
  are not similar to the definitions in chapter 3.7
- The codelist representation are completely different as described in 
  chapter 6 (Code Lists). Especially the code list namespaces do not based on 
  the rules [CDLX] and [CDLXX].
  Furthermore, we have seen that there is no 
  consistency in the tag names of BBIEs and ASBIEs. Some of tag names using the 
  "Object Class Term" and others not. Some of the tag names are prefixed by 
  namespace prefix and others not. This kind of inconsistency does not allow us 
  an efficient and reusable implementation of the components (ABIE, BBIE and 
  ASBIE), because these requires for every qualified form of component an 
  individual development of the interface. Therefore, we're still highly 
  recommending the usage of "Venetian Blind" approach instead of "Garden of 
  Eden" apprach, because the "Venetian Blind" approach can solve all mentioned 
  inconsistencies.
  Kind regards, 
          Gunther 
  Stuhec To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed 
  from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php. 






Follow-Ups:

Re: AW: [ubl] FW: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0
From: Tim McGrath <>








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

--

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