[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is needed
At 07:51 AM 2007-02-09 -0800, G. Ken Holman wrote: >At 2007-02-09 06:11 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote: >>I just got to a fairly stable state with a customization of >>the UBL Catalogue for an opensource price list product. > >I'm very sensitive to this being called "a customization". The committee >has already defined "a customization" and an instance of a customization >must also be an instance of UBL: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200606/msg00095.html > >An instance with no namespace or only one namespace is not an instance of >UBL, so I feel very strongly this cannot be called a customization. I'm >investing a lot of time into what I believe the committee calls >"customization" and this is really muddying the waters. Ken, I think your insistence on proper terminology is useful here. I'm, however, wondering if the TC could consider using another term other than "customization" to define what it is currently defining (ie, a customized instance must be an instance of UBL). The reasoning is that the word "customization" actually portrays act of deriving instances from UBL schema via a much broader means, instead of only via subsetting as what the TC has apparently decided. To "customize" a UBL schema could easily and not unreasonably mean deriving variations from UBL schema to meet one's requirements. This could also mean adding fields, or even changing the data types of some existing UBL fields while retaining the element name, and so on. I must stress that I'm not referring to why TC defines subset as its form of "customization". I'm only suggesting that having decided within the TC that subsetting is officially recognized as its form of "customization", could such an act of deriving subsets be referred to by another more stringent term, leaving "customize" and "customization" to refer to more general means of deriving sets (instead of subsets) originating from UBL. The latter would be helpful to users who generally use the word "customization" in this sense (and I'd say rightfully). It would also be useful to UBL TC because there is then (having introduced the new terminology) an efficient word to refer to "UBL's official way of customization[wc]" (where customization[wc] refers to the wider context meaning of customization). So hopefully this is still in time for consideration by the TC. Thanks for any consideration. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6820-2979 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]