RE: [ubl] Questions regarding customization and context

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: RE: [ubl] Questions regarding customization and context




From: "Sylvia Webb" <>
To: <>,<>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:26:06 -0800









Hello Martin,
 
Thank you very much for the comprehensive comments. They 
are very timely for our upcoming F2F meeting in Manhattan. If there are specific 
times during that week when you could join us by telephone, please let Jon know 
off-line and possibly we could include you by phone in the discussion about 
customization.
 
When the UBL 1.0 customization document was written it was 
deliberately generic. At that time, we did not have enough implementation 
experience to be able to draw specific recommendations for detailed 
customization guidance. That has changed and there are several topics that need 
to be included in a future version of the customization 
guidelines.
 
I will add your comments about the loosely defined 
definitions to our Issue list.  You also raise some important comments 
about cardinality that should be discussed by the TC as 
well.
 
Your questions regarding namespaces are better answered by 
other NDR experts. 
 
WRT your questions regarding the number of documents that 
you have to refer to for UBL, imo, these are more applicable to 
implementation rather than developing the standards themselves.  I 
will email you off-line about this subject. I am working with other 
industry groups who are dealing with these same questions.
 
Can you please provide the TC with more information about 
your negative experiences with using restrictions combined with extensions? I 
think this would be helpful during the customization 
discussions.
 
Regards,
Sylvia

From: Martin Forsberg 
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 
5:30 AM
To: 
Subject: [ubl] 
Questions regarding customization and context




Hello UBL 
TC,

Perhaps this issue has already been 
discussed and solved in this list. If 
so, please help me find the documents or related messages. We are discussing 
different complications and strategies regarding development of 
subsets/customizations of UBL 2.0. As today, UBL 2.0 consists of approximately 
29 business documents, the majority used in the procurement process. All shared 
components (BIEs) are placed in the common library, the transportation library 
or the procurement library. Due to the great number of business documents and 
the more comprehensive model (compared to UBL 1.0) the reusable components tend 
to be very complex and loosely defined. In the Invoice, for example, there is a 
1 to many AccountingDocumentReference, and in this class there is (among others) 
a 1 to many InvoiceDocumentReference. As you can see, this situation makes it 
possible to reference more than one invoice in more than one way.  (Repeat AccountingDocumentReference with 
just one InvoiceDocumentReference in each, or use one 
AccountingDocumentReference and repeat 
InvoiceDocumentReference).

In our customization we might like to 
restrict this and set the InvoiceDocumentReference to 1..1 and 
AccountingDocumentReference 0..n.

This requirement can come from the 
context (like industry or geopolitical target market) but it can also be a 
requirement that is used in one business document, but is contradicted in 
another used in the same scenario (maybe the CreditNote uses 
AccountingDocumentReference in another way).

So finally to my 
questions
-          
How do we make the context 
visible in the schema and xml instance? Can we change the namespace of the 
business document to reflect the context, or does that violate some 
UBL-policy?
-          
If the reusable components 
can’t be reused between different business 
document that are used in the same 
process and in the same context, how should we resolve this? It would require 
change of namespace to the reusable schemas. The alternative is to deploy 
different schemas with contradicting components with the same 
namespaces.
-          
Which method should 
we use to develop the customization? 
I have had some bad experiences using restrictions (especially in combination 
with extension). 
 
 

It is very important 
that the schemas are easy to understand. If we have to refer to several 
documentations (like schema, instance samples, and other documents) to define 
what is part of a specific business document in a specific context, I think we 
will have a problem. 
 
In the EAN.UCC (GS1) 
NDR the recommendation is to reflect the context in namespaces. What I've heard, 
un/cefact has not decided on the subject. It would of course be of great value 
if the strategies were aligned.
 
 
Thanks for your time,

Martin Forsberg
SFTI (Single Face To Industry)








References:

Questions regarding customization and context
From: "Martin Forsberg" <>






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

--

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