[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] ReceiptAdvice Help Needed
Thomas Sorry, I should add that there is a cut-off point for 1.1 additions of content which is coming up very soon (can't recall the exact date but I think there's about a month to go) so its probably not feasible for you to have a submission to that. So really it depends on whether folk in UBL spot your comment here on this list (perhaps a comment too on the UBL comment page of the website might not go amis) and decide to add it to the list of 1.1 content updates. All the best Stephen >>> "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 10/03/05 10:39:30 >>> Thomas There is a customisation methodology as a key feature of UBL. It would be especially important if you wanted to keep your use of UBL as 'conformant' or 'comlpliant' and to be in a better position to exchange messages with users of 'out of the box', uncustomised UBL. That seems to be the official line anyway (the customisation document is in the /doc/cm folder in the UB package or online at http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/doc/cm/wd-ubl-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0.html). Personally I'd consider any negative impacts of any customisation on your adoption of future minor releases of UBL, which, while seeking to maintain backwards compatibility (with respect to instances and the W3C Schema derivation mechanism) with previous releases of UBL do not necessarily cater for backwards compatibility with customised versions. I guess that keeping to the agreed customisation methodology, essentially by keeping to the UBL naming and design rules in editing the Schemas and using W3C Schema (XSD) derivation, importing the UBL official Schemas and basing any new types on those, I guess that this would help keep you in a strong position with regard to future releases of UBL. Happily, perhaps, your comments are likely to be noted in the UBL modeling team and UBL is just now starting to model a new 1.1 release so you might find something to fix this in there (provided your issues are considered of sufficiently widespread significance). If you can wait (perhaps to the end of the year) for UBL 1.1 and petition perhaps for your requirements with the UBL TC (have you access to a representative standards body for your industry who might put a submission together for UBL 1.1?) I'd suggest that that would be best. However, if you can't or don't wish to do that, you could possibly keep conformant with UBl by customisation in the way explained in the link given above or just accept that you might be less conformant but not in disgrace :-) just by adding what you need to your UBL messages and giving the additions a new namespace perhaps. That's my take, for what it's worth. I'm a little new to all this myself and hoping to see how all the theory works out in practise. My own experience of practise only includes the use of include/redefine with another standard but I didn't like that as it broke common sense in that XSD requires include to use the same namespace as the included Schema (is this use or misuse of the standard?) and infact it resulted in a non-standard message to some extent which would limit the scope for reuse. I like the UBL Customisation Methodology in that it offers a way to maintain more official conformance while keeping pace with your own trading requirements - but this could be a negative thing when trying to also keep pace with new releases of the standard (e.g. if UBL 1.1 includes your extra stuff and you've also added it yourself, it might be tricky for you to update your messages, especially if they include other or slightly different customisations to the 1.1 additions). Aplogies for the long treatise :-) All the best and good luck Stephen Green >>> "Seay, Thomas" <thomas.seay@xip.net> 10/03/05 03:49:43 >>> <<UBL is much more suited to adding custom elements than what you may be used to with EDI.>> First of all, thanks for your kind response. In regards to the above, how is that so? It looks to me that adding a custom element would be violating the standard. If there is a means for doing this (adding my custom element without breaking the standard), I would be very interested in learning about that. Thanks for any help that might be provided in regards to this. Thomas Seay Xerox International Partners thomas.seay@xip.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]