UBL master data for maintenance

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: UBL master data for maintenance




From: "Michael Dill" <>
To: "Ubl" <>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:08:50 +0100









Dear Jon,

  
  As far as I remember, we have at least twice picked up about 200 
  technical errors from these UBL 
  spreadsheets. And everybody knows that the formulas of the spreadsheets in order to build 
  a Dictionary Entry Name did not work correctly. We even have the case that the spreadsheets have a) 
  redundant data and b) data on the wrong place, just in order to meet the 
  requirements of formulas, whereas it should be just the other way 
  round. We now know that 
  handcrafting is simply not capable of producing quality results for huge 
  amounts of data.  
   
  Therefore, if we know that a given procedure 
  produces errors, then the procedure has 
  to be changed. 
   
  After reading the UBL call minutes, I understand that the current decision is to view spreadsheets as the maintenance master data of UBL. This means necessarily that UBL plans to produce 
  further errors in the future too. I would 
  like to ask for which reasons the earlier decision to use Edifix as the 
  master has 
  been overturned?
   
  I think, our (GEFEGs) history 
  of contribution A) in developing functionality to produce more and more complex 
  UBL schemas, B) in supporting the NDR development by running an 
  implementation verification and C) in delivering a QA instrument by 
  reading/producing SS is quite a lot for the volunteer work of a small team. 
  
   
  As I strongly believe that nobody wants me to 
  do unnecessary work by correcting errors, which are in fact avoidable, 
  I'd like to put on the agenda for one of the next calls, the question of how UBL intends to deal with the 
  necessary QA to remove the 
  handcrafted errors each time the 'master' . SSs need to be reimported into the edifix tool (EF). In 
  particular, who is going to do this work which consists of importing into EF, 
  going through laboriously correcting all the reported errors and exporting 
  again and which may require, on previous experience, more than one 
  iteration.
   
  BTW: if UBL was to be 
  really serious about production 
  quality, we should 
  need to check through two 
  tools in order to have enough possibilities of double checking the resultant schemas. This has always been the best 
  implementation verification.
   
  
  Once Tim said to me, that he was 
  astonished that he has not 
  yet seen me become 
  as frustrated as Gunther and then Chi-Kai were. However, it seems that frustration 
  is again being introduced - is this 
  intentional?
   
  Best regards,
  Michael  
  Dill
  GEFEG 
  mbH 
   





Follow-Ups:

Re: [ubl] UBL master data for maintenance
From: 








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

--

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