RE: [ubl] Changes to UBL NDR

Title: Changes to UBL NDR

Hi Peter,

 

> I though that 
this reluctance was cleared away in the last Atlantic 
call.

 

Unfortunately, I was unable to make last week's 
call.

 

As you may recall, when this was first proposed I 
thought it was a good idea and supported it fully. It was only after members 
with significant standards experience expressed reservations that I became 
ambivalent. If the Danish proposal now has the support of these 
members (which it seems to have), I have absolutely no objection to its 
adoption with some minor changes and clarifications, proposed in previous 
emails, to be discussed today.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

  

  
  From: Peter Borresen [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, 05 April 2006 0431
To: Grimley Michael J 
  NPRI; 
Subject: SV: [ubl] Changes to UBL 
  NDR

  

  
Hi 
  Mike

  
 

  
I 
  though that this reluctance was cleared away in the last Atlantic call. I 
  understand your worry but in my suggestion the use of xsd:any is very 
  restricted and is after all a bette suggestion than putting extensions into a 
  CDATA construction in a note field, that we see a lot of today. A text field 
  is after all just as undefined (if not more) that a xsd:any. 
  

  
 

  
We a 
  problem with implementing the proposal in our own localization: How can we do 
  a localization that does not follow the UBL NDR? Can we then call that UBL? Is 
  it desireable for UBL that the largest implementation of UBL will not be 
  UBL?

  
 

  
I 
  agree with you that we should discuss this at the meeting today. 
  We also need to discuss whether we want documents to be exchange 
  within the UBL namespace or only within a derived namespace. If the UBL 
  namspace is going to be used for the real world then UBL must listen to the 
  requirement from the real world and not just let it be up to the 
  implementors.

  

  

  
 Kind 
  regards

  
Peter

  
 

  
    
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Grimley Michael J NPRI 
    [mailto:]
Sendt: 4. april 2006 
    22:30
Til: 
Cc: Peter 
    Borresen
Emne: RE: [ubl] Changes to UBL NDR

    
Peter,

    
 

    
I believe there is still significant reluctance to 
    allow xsd:any in the UBL Standard. Issues were raised in New York that I'm 
    not sure have been addressed. Have you considered my suggestion 
    of implementing it as a Danish extension to UBL, rather than it 
    becoming a part of the UBL standard?

    
 

    
Hopefully all 
    interested parties will be on the call tomorrow so we can reach closure on 
    this issue.

    
 

    
As far as 
    including additional information in a message, I believe that would be 
    a Content issue, rather than an NDR issue (aside from the fact that they 
    would need to be elements, rather than 
    attributes).

    
 

    
Thank You,

    
Mike

    
 

    
      

      
      From: Peter Borresen [mailto:] 
      
Sent: Tuesday, 04 April 2006 0847
To: 
      
Subject: [ubl] Changes to UBL 
      NDR

      

      
Dear UBL TC 

      
Here is my proposal for updating the NDR so it 
      fits with the Danish requirements: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
      
Chapter 5: 

      
Delete line 1583-1589   [This is allready 
      described in line 1790-1798] 
Change 
      line 1790-1798 to: 

      
"UBL restricts use of xsd:any to extensions. 
      There can only be two usages of xsd:any in a document; one in the end of a 
      line element and one as the last element of the document. The content of a 
      xsd:any must point to a well known schema, approved by the UBL TC, UBL 
      subcommitee or a UBL localization group."

      
Chapter 8: 

      
Add a new section 8.5 (Section 8.5 becomes 8.6) 
      : 

      
8.5 Instance origin 

      
To be able to track how the instance was 
      generated the following process-instruction SHOULD be added to each 
      document instances:

      
<?InstanceInfo 
      
        Creator="<person or application (inklusiv full verison 
      attributes) that has generated the document" 
      
        Created="<date and time the document was send>" 
      
?> 

      
To be able to track what version of schemas an 
      instance was generated from the following attributes SHOULD be present in 
      each document:

      
        
MinorVersion 
        
Context 
        
Subset 
        
Profile 

      
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
      

      
Kind regards 

      
Peter 

      
PS: Maybe some one english speking person 
      should edit the text before chunking it into the NDR document.