RE: SV: [ubl-dev] Hybrid approach to local vs. global

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Bryan, 

The full design for CAM supports completely transparent XML tag mapping
- so you can have any tagnames you want. 

We moved this to the non-normative section of CAM for v1.1 - so that we
could implement the initial release with the core feature set first -
this was simply an expediency - and based on what we felt we could make
normative - so we trimmed it down to the v1.1 subset. 

Because CAM is not locked to the schema - you could easily do something
like this: 

<Danish-UBL> 
  <danish-tag1> 
  <danish-tag2> 
  <danish-etc> 
</Danish-UBL> 

as far as CAM is concerned this is then 100% compatible with the English
equivalent UBL and it will validate it identically to english UBL. And
of course all the XPaths in the CAM templates reference the Danish
terms - making it much easier for in-country use. 

Then in the <Extension> you provide the <DataReference> section that
marries each Danish tag to the equivalent UBL item.  You can also
lookup to an optional registry - for things like localized error
messages and definitions.

To convert the XML Danish tags to English tags is then a trivial
transform exercise - a concept I refer to as "transformation at point
of use" - when your partners profile indicates they do not support the
Danish-UBL - and want normative english UBL.  That partner would have
no inkling at that point that the original XML was not created in XSD
compatible UBL.

This is something though that can easily be added in to jCAM via the new
<Extensions> mechanism that is designed for this purpose. 

If you wanted to contribute this <Extension> to the jCAM project - we'd
welcome that - and we can add Developer resources to the SourceForge
site to facilitate that for you. 

We'd then look to add this in to a future release of the OASIS CAM
specification once it had been developed to a normative level of
maturity.

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Hybrid approach to local vs. global
From: "Bryan  Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>
Date: Fri, March 02, 2007 6:54 am
To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>,
<ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>

>
>>For example - if the Russian Government said - "we'd love to use UBL -
>>but we need different tagnames for in country use" - then having the
>>option to use CAM to morph between localization details and say an EU
>>base-line - would obviously be enabling... and overall I'm guessing the
>>bigger goal is UBL adoption and use, rather than say driving XSD
>>adoption and use!?!

>This isn't a new idea and my comments regarding not supporting this 
>have nothing to do with CAM.  ISO/IEC 19757-8 Document Schema 
>Renaming Language (DSRL) was also posited to address the use case of 
>a community of UBL users wanting to have "local" names for a 
>transliterated (not transformed) document vocabulary equivalent in 
>structure to UBL.  This has already been discussed.

Is this part of the DSDL?


I agree with the rest of Ken's statements, but would like to note that
in
Denmark the way that it is handled is that basically every XPath
expression
has a Danish term associated with it that has some commonly understood
Business meaning in Denmark. So that the documentation always refers to
such
stuff as Købers Ordre Nummer and so forth, which is really hard to
figure out
what it means because for each one of these terms you need to actually
figure
out what is being mapped.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org