ubl — archive

FW: [ubl] UBL master data for maintenance

From: Sue Probert
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:58:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

Subject: FW: [ubl] UBL master data for maintenance

From: "Sue Probert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:57:42 -0000

Mike

The issue that is being discussed here is not about making assumptions about
the use of any specific tools. The use of EDIFIX to support the UBL has
never precluded any other approaches. It is simply an issue of QA and
efficiency.

The use of spreadsheets as the 'master' of the library data results
inevitably in errors caused by mistyping and due to the lack of any CCTS
structural checking. This is a fact well-proven. Of course, spreadsheet
approaches, even non-MS proporietary ones are always possible and will
remain so.

However, if UBL is to manage to achieve its goals within the projected
time-scales and with the highest quality ensured then it would seem only
sensible to consider using a freely offered tool to assist. All that Gefeg
have ever said to the group is that if incremental changes to the data are
documented separately in the spreadsheet then the datamodel in EDIFIX can be
kept bugfree much more efficiently. This is the only aspect that has ever
been described in terms of which is the 'master' information.

In reality the spreadsheet remains the 'master' library content but edits to
the data are documented there before being updated directly into Edifix and
then exported as an updated 'master' spreadsheet. There has never been any
dependency on using Edifix, it is just a tool to make the job easier,
quicker and more accurate. There will hopefully be many more such tools to
help all UBL and other CCTS implementers in the future.

We are all quite happy to use XML Spy for schema validation and this is
certainly a quite sophisticated software tool. We could, of course, use
notepad instead and check the validation by human scrutiny but I would
hazard a guess that that would not be the most effiient thing to do!

So, my plea is that we should encourage not discourage tools vendors to work
towards supporting the UBL community whilst at the same time ensuring that
they are never able to preclude non-proprietary alternatives.

I feel strongly about this as a former EDI tools vendor myself and also
because I watched, with the EDI community, a lack of availability of tools
holding back implentation disastrously for many years.

Let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces.

regards

Sue