[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is needed
At 2007-02-09 09:28 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote: >Perhaps, Ken, it would be different when it is all just different >BBIEs for a common set of core components. This then would >be a context specific implementation of the same BIEs and CCs. >CCTS's harmonization and conformance emphasis is on the >model rather than the implementation in XML. Ken Wrote >Fine, but that *isn't* UBL. I have to agree with Ken on this. Interoperability at the instance level is key. Please use such a format as an internal format and convert it to a valid UBL instance before exchanging it with other applications. Being able to exchange and validate UBL instances around the world it what makes UBL a succes. For that we need the UBL data model to be expressed by normative schemas. We may choose to alter our NDR at a later time, but UBL 2.0 normative schemas have been produced with an NDR which the TC agreed on. I say this from practical experience with millions of documents exchanged - preserving namespaces is very important. Best regards Mikkel
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]