|Subject:||Re: [ebxml-bp] First cut at a combination of two UBP process definitions|
|From:||Stephen Green (step...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Apr 20, 2006 7:16:02 am|
Thanks for these comments. I hope we might be able to remember to ask you to echo them again when the UBL 2 second review starts. The XPath name is philosophically correct, so I'm told by Ken though I can't claim to understand it well. It just takes a simple mapping to create XPath strings from the definition but the definition can be mapped easily to other artifacts too. We provide a sample stylesheet to do the conversion to XPath strings in either HTML or text. Cardinality is the main reason we do more than just list XPaths as strings - that would loose the cardinality (multiple occurance) information which we need the subset definitions to keep (and possibly restrict).
Another factor to consider is that by its guiding priniciples UBL is designed not to have to be used with ebXML, so a registry cannot be assumed (nor, strictly could it be of course with a purely ebXML solution, I suppose). UBL does now and then get asked to include features which could be provided by ebXML components but which governments, etc need in some more independant means when ebXML cannot be enforced for political reasons or economic (not sure of the details). These are similar factors to those in the codelist methodology discussion too.
All the best
On 20/04/06, David RR Webber (XML) <dav...@drrw.info> wrote:
At first glance through - this is a very nice and well thought out example.
I wish I had more time right now to knock out the VisualScript model for this - as what you have is very nicely setup to create the visual model and parameterize it so its readily re-usable. (Also - having a tool figure out the IDrefs for you is heaven!). Probably a couple of days work tops to get it done from what I have already.
So two thumbs up.
On to other parts - I spotted the UBL document definitions made reference to the XPath definitions - so I strayed into that URL to see what that is about - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cs-UBL-1.0-SBS-1.0/xpaths/xml/XPath/Invoice-XPath.xml
This seems a misnomer - as it appears to have very little to do with XPath at all!?!
I keep having this deja vue with the UBL team - at times it seems we are just ships in the night on different voyage paths - doing the same thing - but different.
This XPath file seems more of an attempt at a simple vocabulary dictionary, with some assembly constraints thrown in. In fact it looks like someone took the work we were doing in RegRep on storing nouns and flattened it into XML and threw it out there on a file system - instead of using a Registry to store this information into. IMHO - this "XPath" artifact is screaming out for being stored in an ebXML Registry - and in that case you can use the registry to do most all the things this XML is trying to (and then a whole lot more besides!).
Missing off the "XPath" content though - is each Element parent level entity should have an attribute - UID - that contains the unique domain ID value for that thing. E.g. Element name='TaxPointDate' UID='UBL010123' etc - and points back to the EDI notion of dictionary ID.
This then correlates to the LIN and UID external identifier mechanisms in ebXML Registry.
Beyond that - I see from the constraint information being provided in "XPath" - that this then takes us over into the work we are doing with CAM and Registry - so that the jCAM processor can look up entity definition usage information and then automagically apply that at run time to processing of XML documents. CAM could be easily extended to reference these XPath definitions...
So - the point is I guess - we need some more liaison to be occurring between the UBL / RegRep / CAM teams on some go forwards. We can make this so much more compelling and powerful - with just a little bit of effort here - than what this "XPath" definition set appears to be doing right now?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ebxml-bp] First cut at a combination of two UBP process definitions From: "Stephen Green" <step...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, April 19, 2006 5:07 pm To: "ebXML BP" <ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Monica, ebBP TC,
I just completed a first cut at combining a receipt advice notification UBP process definition with one for an invoice, to demonstrate (I hope, please correct if necessary) an invoice being triggered by a receipt advice (this can happen by the way, but is for illustration of course).
If I have time I'd like to show an order cancellation only allowed after an order has been given a successful 'order response simple' (with order accepted) and not after a despatch advice. I just think I will need help with the latter, more so as I haven't done much of a similar nature as yet. Plus I may not have time before the end of the week and I guess Monica would like something before then - so here is the simpler one in the meantime.
All the best