[cctont-imp] [Fwd: [ubl] FW: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS

[Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>]

fyi ...    (01)

--- Begin Message ---

To:	<ubl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ubl-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From:	<MCRAWFORD@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:56:03 -0400
Message-id:	<877716E0CE3D764B936101DEB781451A383309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Folks,

 

Gunther sent this in last week.  Given the nature of the comments, we need to ensure we address these as part of our review process.  I would like these added to the issues list.

 

Mark

---

From: Stuhec, Gunther [mailto:gunther.stuhec@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 6/18/2004 3:05 AM
To: 'ubl-comment@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: Von Riegen, Claus
Subject: [ubl-comment] Review and comments of OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0

Hello all,

regrets for sending our comments after the deadline. I was in vacation, therefore I couldn't sent our comments earlier. I hope you'll still recognize our comments.

We have reviewed the OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) V1.0 in detail and we're strongly in favor with the statement: "These document assembly models are then transformed in accordance with UBL Naming and Design Rules into W3C XSD schema syntax.". We compared the schemas of the UBL libraries with the rules of wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-V1pt0Draftp and have seen a high number of discrepancies. The following list shows only the most serious discrepancies:

- The overall schema structures are not based on the rules of chapter 3.1.
- The namespaces are not based on the namespace rules of chapter 3.4.2 (Namespace Uniform Resource Identifiers).
- Each attribute names do not based on the conventions of chapter 4.4 (Attribute Naming Rules).
- The structure of the annotations are not similar to the definitions in chapter 3.7
- The codelist representation are completely different as described in chapter 6 (Code Lists). Especially the code list namespaces do not based on the rules [CDLX] and [CDLXX].

Furthermore, we have seen that there is no consistency in the tag names of BBIEs and ASBIEs. Some of tag names using the "Object Class Term" and others not. Some of the tag names are prefixed by namespace prefix and others not. This kind of inconsistency does not allow us an efficient and reusable implementation of the components (ABIE, BBIE and ASBIE), because these requires for every qualified form of component an individual development of the interface. Therefore, we're still highly recommending the usage of "Venetian Blind" approach instead of "Garden of Eden" apprach, because the "Venetian Blind" approach can solve all mentioned inconsistencies.

Kind regards,

        Gunther Stuhec

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
--- End Message ---

 _________________________________________________________________
To  Post: mailto:cctont-imp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/cctont-imp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/CCT-Representation/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (01)