|G. Ken Holman||Jul 6, 2006 6:08 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 6, 2006 11:22 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 9, 2006 1:08 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 9, 2006 1:53 pm||.doc|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 9, 2006 3:55 pm|
|jon....@sun.com||Jul 11, 2006 5:43 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 13, 2006 4:04 pm||.zip|
|jon....@sun.com||Jul 14, 2006 7:45 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 15, 2006 2:33 am||.zip|
|jon....@sun.com||Jul 15, 2006 1:12 pm|
|jon....@sun.com||Jul 17, 2006 10:11 am|
|Subject:||Specification approach for UBL 2 SBS|
|From:||G. Ken Holman (gkho...@CraneSoftwrights.com)|
|Date:||Jul 6, 2006 6:08:01 am|
Fellow members of UBL SBSC,
I would like to propose to the SBSC that we as a group consider a different approach towards specifying the UBL 2 SBS than was done for the UBL 1 SBS.
As you recall, we specified UBL 1 SBS exclusively through XPath files that catalogued the information items in the subset.
In the development of UBL 2 there has been feedback regarding the perceived necessity, let alone convenience, to some of having schema expressions of the subset. This would be a set of schemas for the same namespace but specifying a lesser set of optional constructs, just as was specified by the XPath files, but doing so using XSD.
I've posted some thoughts of mine regarding UBL customization approaches here:
Please let me know your thoughts about treating UBL 2 SBS as a UBL customization effort such that we produce an SBS set of schemata, as described in chapter 8 of that paper referenced above. As I've indicated in that paper, I propose using XPath files to conclusively prove through exhaustive enumeration that each and every possible information item and cardinality of the SBS schemata is an information item allowed in UBL. I don't see the SBS needing any extension elements, only needing to elide optional elements.
Because of the push for code lists and other UBL 2 issues (and writing my UBL tutorial) I have yet to write the code utilizing XPath files to prove the exhaustive enumeration, but this is high on my "to do" list once we get into UBL 2 review.
Nevertheless, I thought it important that we should start talking about UBL 2 SBS now in order to get ideas on the table for consideration. Hopefully for UBL 2 SBS we would be able to subset the common library expressions and each of the document types such that we have a single suite of XSD expressions of the normative subset of UBL 2 that is the Small Business Subset.
Please let me know what you think.
. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
-- Registration open for UBL training: Montréal, Canada 2006-08-07 Also for XSL-FO/XSLT training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04 Also for UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Varo,Denmark 06-09-25/10-06 World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training. G. Ken Holman mailto:gkho...@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal