[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Specifying use of a profile with CPP
Stephen, I'm deep in this trench at the moment. I'm using OASIS jCAM for the validation - which avoids issues with schema, XML and validation. Basically the idea is that you can associate a CAM template with a document definition (send or receipt) in your CPP isntead of the XSD. Then you can sue your ebMS engine, post-CPA checks, (Hermes can be tweaked in this way) - to run the jCAM processor prior to invoking the data-agent servlet to scoop up the payload. Also - Dale has posted a similar related Q to the BPSS list this week - vis linkage between BPSS and CPP - however - there is no dependency here - you can independently use CPA - it will therefore have an implied psuedo BPSS. See my paper here on deployment models for ebXML to understand more: http://ebxmlbook.com/Benefits of ebXML.pdf Hope this helps. DW ============================= Stephen Green wrote: >Greetings > >I've some questions about ebXML CPP in relation to UBL as an ebXML payload. > > >1. For someone using UBL Lite as a profile, is it possible to specify use of a profile in CPP? >Using the CPP Schema, tp:NamespaceSupported element I can specify: > ><tp:NamespaceSupported tp:location="UBL-Order-1.0.xsd" tp:version="ubl-lite-0.2">urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Order-1.0</tp:NamespaceSupported> > >but I imagine it might not be proper to use the tp:version attribute in this way > >Also, in the above example it seems the emphasis is on the location of the Schema rather than the namespace; >the example CPP document given actually uses the Schema location in the text of the element too. I took the >liberty of using the namespace of the UBL document in the element text content but is this correct? >UBL doesn't yet have a permanent loaction so I'm perturbed at the emphasis on location in what should be >by definition a specification of support of a namespace rather than a physical Schema file. > > > >2. Does one have to wait for an official BPSS definition of UBL processes to be defined in order to use UBL with CPP? > >How can I get appropriate values for: > ><tp:ProcessSpecification tp:version="**" tp:name="*******" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="*****" tp:uuid="******"/> > >in order to specify use of UBL in my CPP document? > > > >3. Pushing this further, what would be required in order to specify use of a defined subset/profile of UBL such as UBL Lite? >I would imagine something like ><tp:ProcessSpecification tp:version="2.0" tp:name="ubl-lite-0.2" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200409/msg00002.html" tp:uuid="*******"/> >but this would be a desparate measure and it still doesn't give me a tp:uuid. > > > >4. ** Does this all mean we can't use CPP without there having been substancial BPSS and registration work already done at a standards level? ** > > > > >I'd appreciate any help or comments > >Stephen Green > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]