[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Order items - substitution items - optimization
I have to go with Chee-Kai (excuse me if I'm mixing surname and forename), Buyers and Sellers are derived from the class Party if I understand the thinking correctly (I have tried to keep out of the modelling/semantics discussions because I didn't agree with much from an XML aesthetics discussion and didn't see any reason to fight against what seems foregone, the downside is that I don't know much of the arguments as to why things are as they are). It seems David is arguing that rather they are both Party instances that have a role of either Buyer or Seller. This doesn't seem right because there is a major difference between them in a business context, although not modelled in UBL 2.0 internally in the structure of a Buyer or Seller, and that difference is in which direction the money is moving. Given such a major difference, even if it is implicit, it somehow feels right to identify them by naming the structure rather than by giving a generic structure a role. (but note, this is just a feeling on my part) At any rate, because of the difference in which direction the money is moving, what optimization is possible? Surely you will still have to process them seperately. Cheers, Bryan Rasmussen -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@SoftML.Net] Sendt: 18. januar 2007 05:21 Til: David RR Webber (XML); ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Emne: Re: [ubl-dev] Order items - substitution items - optimization At 01:14 PM 2007-01-17 -0700, David RR Webber \(XML\) wrote: >Folks - just reviewing this - seems like Buyer and Seller substitution >items are identical structurally (but HUGE!) - therefore it would make >more sense to just have one of them in the schema structure - >repeatable - and then a mandatory LineType of either "Buyer" / >"Seller". I'm afraid this would discard the whole point of cementing the semantics of "Buyer" with the Buyer tag and the semantics of "Seller" with the Seller tag which UBL 1.0 & 2.0 so readily provide now. Informatically, you cannot throw away, or rather optimise (to put it more nicely), the bit information of "Buyer/Seller". This means that if you have a GenericBuyerOrSeller tag, you're going to need a flag of some sort as a child of that to distinguish them apart. The decision to use either <GenereicBuyerOrSeller> <Flag>I-am-a-Buyer</Flag> ... </GenereicBuyerOrSeller> <GenereicBuyerOrSeller> <Flag>I-am-a-Seller</Flag> ... </GenereicBuyerOrSeller> OR <Buyer>...</Buyer> <Seller>...</Seller> is thrashed out within UBL, and I suppose the common wisdom coming out of UBL 1.0 & 2.0 is the latter form. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6820-2979 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]