SBS for UBL 2

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl-sbsc message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: SBS for UBL 2




From: 
To: 
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:36:34 -0600






Folks

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).

Any thoughts?

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

Stephen Green