Re: [ubl] Any comments on the propose Explanatory Nots for the UBL 2.1 PAS submission to ISO-IEC JTC1

[Tim McGrath <tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com>]

thanks for this - i added some remarks below..

On 23/02/2014, at 12:39 AM, G. Ken Holman wrote:

> At 2014-02-21 14:37 +0800, Tim McGrath wrote:
>> OASIS have drafted a short explanatory note for JTC 1 about the PAS submission of UBL 2.1 and asked us for any comments.
> 
> Thanks, Tim, for having managed this so far.  And thanks to others for covering off some of the comments I would have made.
> 
>> Please read this and send any comments  (to this UBL list) before Feb 26th so we can finalize this on the call(s) that day.
>> 
>> Note: we are not 'approving' this - it is just an opportunity to provide feedback for OASIS.
> 
> (0) - the document could use page numbers at least and also section numbers to help with referencing

I will leave that to OASIS - they have done this a few times before and i suspect we are following a previous template. So the audience will be familiar with this layout.

> 
> (1) - grammar
>    - "for UBL was commercial..." -> "for UBL was the commercial..."
sorry that was my editing!

> 
> (2) - the box at the beginning of the Introduction requests to "clearly define the technical concepts"
> - at the end of the introduction, after the URI's for download and before the Organizational Criteria, insert a copy of Figure H.2 from the specification:
> 
>  http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html#F-OPEN-EDI-APPLICATION
> 
> ... using the following introductory text that uses words from that boxed instruction at the beginning of the Introduction:
> 
>  "The technical concepts of UBL that are normative in the specification
>   map directly to concepts standardized in ISO/IEC 14662 "Open-edi
>   Reference Model" and detailed in ISO/IEC 15944-20 "Linking business
>   operational view to functional service view" as shown in this diagram
>   from Annex H of UBL 2.1:
> 
>      {insert figure H.2 here}
>  "
> 
> I know this is further reinforced by the reference later in "Relationship to Existing Standards", but I suggest we make it explicit here because of the request for a description of technical concepts.  Also, I would imagine some reviewers not to read past the introduction.  The introduction asks specifically for technical concepts and including the figure gives the reader an existing standardized framework for those technical concepts.
> 
> And I'm sure diagrams help and there currently are no diagrams in the submission, nor many opportunities to include them.
> 
Good idea - it seems sensible to reference other JTC1 frameworks.

> (3) - "which is incorporated into and included in v 2.1"
>   -> "which is incorporated into, included in and fully backwards-compatible within v 2.1"

this sentence was getting messy so i restructured a bit.

> 
> (4) - I believe the possessive of "OASIS" is "OASIS's" and not "OASIS'" as used in a number of places in the document, based on the rule that the apostrophe is used without an "s" only when it follows an "s" used in the plural; in this case the "S" at the end of "OASIS" is not for the plural, and so an "s" following the apostrophe is required;  an illustration of this rule is in the name "Charles" where one would write "Charles's job" and not "Charles' job" because the "s" at the end of "Charles" is not for the plural.
> 
there was actually only one incorrect usage. i know people get fussy about the old apostrophe 

> (5) - after "in view of its broad implementation in existing applications and tools.", add "Valid XML instances of UBL 2.0 schemas are, by design, valid XML instances of UBL 2.1 schemas."
> 
OK

> (6) - "more than 20 years ago" -> "more than 30 years ago"
> 
yes - its probably even more than that but 20 was too short.

> (7) - "expressible in XML" -> "expressed in XML"
>    - then add Andy's observation to make:  "expressed in XML and ASN.1"
>    - but that begs the question that given the ASN.1 committee note is a separate document than the UBL 2.1 Standard document ... should we be going through this process with JTC 1 for a committee note?  I bet we cannot do so with a committee note and we can only do so with an OASIS standard.  Are we stuck here, or do we need to start up a parallel track to change the committee note into an OASIS standard?
> 

Only the XML (XML Schema) is normative (and part of the submission) so lets leave it at that. we do say ASN.1 and UML are available but we are not saying these expressions should be normative or an ISO Standard.  We made these Committee Specs partly so that we can maintain them independently and i still think that applies.  They are supporting documentation.

> I hope this helps.
> 
> . . . . . .  Ken
> 
> --
> Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL & code list classes: Melbourne, AU May 2014 |
> Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training |
> Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm |
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.            http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
> G. Ken Holman                   mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
> Google+ profile:      http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
> Legal business disclaimers:    http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

-----------------
Regards 
Tim McGrath
tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com
Fremantle, Western Australia
http://www.documentengineeringservices.com