|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 31, 2006 4:36 am|
|Subject:||SBS for UBL 2|
|Date:||Jul 31, 2006 4:36:36 am|
It seems we are approaching time to start serious putting together of the Small Business Subset for UBL 2.
I have started a more serious draft of the content, basing it on three or four principles
1. keep closely to the same semantic and functional limits of the UBL 1 SBS - this minimises changes to just those below
2. adapt tha above to align with UBL 2, to help ensure minimal opportunites for data loss when translating instances between UBL 1 SBS and UBL 2 SBS (some elements in UBL 1 SBS are missing from UBL 2 and vice versa) - this leads to removal of certain elements
3. include where appropriate changes proposed in comments, particularly those detailed comments just received from JPLSC (remembering scope factors) - this leads to new inclusions Thanks JPLSC
4a. taking on board Ken's recent comments that we try to align the document type subsets to all use the same library subset - this leads to some changes 4b. again from Ken's comment, try to produce a set of schema files which we might be able tyo consider actually publishing as part of the SBS package Thanks Ken
With this in mind I have a draft spreadsheet, set of instances and set of schema files covering, so far, the same documents as those in UBL 1.0. I'm trying to think what to call it: something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-InitialProcurement' and then the extended procurement documents could be called something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-ExtendedProcurement'.
I have a bit of a feeling that we may need to produce a second minor or major version of the UBL 1.0 SBS. This is for a few reasons 1. minor errors in the committee spec (not affecting the normative files though) 2. main reason: to have a version for folk to use with UBL 1.0 which better aligns with UBL 2, now that we have a good idea what UBL 2 will include (there would be reason to remove some elements such as those not found in UBL 2 and the same four points as above could all be included).
One downside is that already this could fragment implementations.
I have done a fair bit of work on it as I've prepared a content model for the UBL 2 SBS (it was really a prerequisit to the design).
How are our timescale factors looking. I need a fair bit of time to work some more on the content draft but perhaps days or weeks.
All the best