At 2006-08-13 10:49 +0800, Tim McGrath wrote:
>i agree with sylvia but i think she is reading
>too much into this. what i see in ken's
>documents is simply the "only mandatory"
>items. that is, an automatic generation of a
>model that only contains the items flagged as mandatory in the schema.
Precisely.
>no business rules are used to guide this model
>and as such it is fairly meaningless. no-one
>could use this model as-is. consider the
>waybill - it only decribes a shipment and no parties involved!
Does that mean that it doesn't have sufficient
mandatory elements for a UBL document type?
>i suspect ken was seeing value in a "meets all
>mandatory requirements" generic model for
>minimum compliance checking. but i am think this
>is more a technical objective than a business one.
Kind of ... but is there a business benefit
enabled by the technical enabling of a
transaction of core information upon which the receiver adds what is needed.
>in fact there is a danger here that this type of
>model may become a target for compliance in
>application interfaces. i am not sure we want that.
I think it is worth discussing.
Thanks, Tim!
. . . . . . Ken
--
UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training:
Vårø, Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman
mailto:
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
