[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Customising and versioning
Steve, Yes - were trying to reduce that "on-ramp" with the new release of CAM tools - including an editor and the new V1.1 pluggable architecture to provide direct integration to people's existing production systems. More on that at the end of the month as we roll out the new revised upgraded specification and releases... It's all a learning curve - and finding the right answers it not so easy - because otherwise everyone would be doing it already! Providing templates that people can rapidly adapt is another key we know is needed - and again - that's on the schedule here to be done. For example this week I was able to provide xslt templates for manipulating CPA.xml to make assembly of CPA instances using CAM a reality. Thanks, DW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Customising and versioning From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> Date: Thu, September 07, 2006 8:47 am To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> Hi David Good point. I just have a feeling there going to be so many out there yet who would understand a CAM template but would be able to sing happily to the tune of a set of schema files. Then there is always scope to use the CAM for some of the production systems once they have been specified and the standards and customisations adopted. All the best Steve >>> "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> 07/09/06 13:40:30 >>> At the risk of sounding like a broken record - if you want to wean off your dependency on "big oil" - aka XSD from the W3C - and use a toolset that allows you to do minor and major versioning and extensions with explicit referencing back to the original core components and NDR - then CAM templates are available! DW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Customising and versioning From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> Date: Thu, September 07, 2006 8:24 am To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> Excellent points, Mark. Thanks. I'll think about and try out a few things they bring to mind. Two of your points I'd highlight and ponder for now: Firstly, the conformance to underlying core components. I admit this is the first time I've personally got as far as considering this (too tied up in the XSD before). Secondly, the matter of customizing: I hadn't really been dwelling on that yet so much as on internal 'customization' as a means to produce minor versions (more the could it be done than the should it be done). So those two things considered at this stage (I hope to quickly get on to wider customization though), I guess the first thing I'd like to dwell on is how to produce a minor version of UBL 1.0, 2prd1 or 2prd2/3 (not that UBL 1.0 is up for minor versioning but just in theory). The first thing after the W3C XML Schema mechanisms to be used is the matter of the core components. I guess it might be that either 1. there are new core components to be added (as BIEs) by extension 2. better conformance of BIEs to existing core components can be achieved by a mix of extension and restriction of the existing BIEs (or just extension or just restriction). I'll hopefully be able to go away and look at these before moving on to wider customization mechanisms. That's because I think the way wider customizations are planned and implemented partly depends on what mechanisms are available for minor versions. For instance, not knowing what mechanisms will be used but knowing that there is a barrier to using substitution groups for it in UBL 2, leads to the conclusion that one might have to think how to customize a redefined schema and if this is indeed a major problem, one might wish to feed this back to UBL as the NDR 2.0 goes to public review (perhaps shortly from the look of the recent minutes). Many thanks Steve >>> "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com> 07/09/06 13:01:14 >>> > The result, as far as I could work things out, > was that UBL 1.0 allows derivation with substitution > groups (despite that being at odds a bit with UBL NDR 1.0) > as does UBL 2 prd 1, whereas UBL 2 prd 2 requires use > of redefine (which I did manage to get to work nicely). Stephen, Remember, the NDR are normative for UBL schema, not customizers. Very early on we had this discussion on what is considered conformant derivations and what is not. Substitution groups and redefine are perfectly acceptable provided you are not trying to claim conformance since they break relationships with the underlying core components. Kind Regards, Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]