Universal Business Language would require 3rd party

Document Sample
Universal Business Language would require 3rd party Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                   Justification Recommended
Line          Comment                                                              for Comment Change          Submitter
              Should list all namespace prefixes in a table which also lists the
General   1   URI.                                                                                             Sall
              - It would be helpful to generate lists of elements and types
              collected by namespace (generated from the schemas), a la XML
General   2   Spy and EDIFIX.                                                                                  Sall
              - Should collect all acronyms used in this document in one place.
              Some are used before they are defined, such as LCSC on line
General   3   1139. See also line 188.                                                                         Sall

              - It seems rather hypocritical that UBL and CCTS which espouse
              the notion of severely limiting the number of acronyms to be used
              in schema should themselves introduce dozens of acroynms which
General   4   are only relevant to these 2 documents.                                                          Sall




              - Each of the 147 NDR rules should be followed by an example, or
General   5   atl east provide examples for those that are less than obvious.                                  Sall
                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line          Comment                                                             for Comment Change          Submitter




              - The well-known "xsd" prefix is used very inconsistently
              throughout the NDR. It should only be used to indicate elements
              from the W3C XML Schema language. Suggestion is to verify that
              every use of "xsd:" is immediately followed by an XSD element
              name. (Examples of incorrect uses appear below.) It would help to
              used "XSD" when referring to the XML Schema language and its
General   6   constructs (i.e., "XSD datatypes").                                                             Sall
              - XML is case sensitive. All elements in the XSD language use
              lower camelcase. Therefore, the initial letter after the colon
General   7   separator should be lowercase.                                                                  Sall
                                                                                    Justification Recommended
Line          Comment                                                               for Comment Change          Submitter
              - The "xsd" namespace prefix should never be capitalized. Audit all
General   8   section headings.                                                                                 Sall
              - The NDR is inconsistent in its use of fixed width fonts to
              distinguish elements from text. Suggest auditing every colon-
General   9   separated term.                                                                                   Sall
                                                                                        Justification Recommended
Line           Comment                                                                  for Comment Change          Submitter
General        I have a broad concern that the UBL Naming rules do not allow
               “compatible evolution” of the UBL components. In a distributed
               system, such as the Web and Web services, it is regularly not
               possible nor necessary to force all parties to upgrade their
               software at the same time. There are a variety of strategies that
               can be used to ensure that a compatible distributed evolution, that
               is evolution by only 1 side, is possible. These issues are
               expanded upon further in the W3C TAG finding on extensibility and
               versioning [1], an xml.com article on versioning xml
               vocabularies[2], and an ongoing work on extending and versioning
               XML languages article [3]. A design that enables compatible
               evolution that makes use of XML’s namespace features and
               supports evolving schemas involves re-using namespace names
               for compatible, or minor, changes to the names. This enables
               namespace aware software to not “break” whenever a compatible
               change is done. Should precise identification of the “version” of a
               vocabulary be required, a version attribute that specifies a “minor”
               version can be used. Further, UBL does not enable any
               extensibility as it does not specify any rules for allowing extensible
               content models and particularly XML Schema’s wildcard facility
               and the “Must Ignore Unknowns” rule. It seems that delivery of the
               “Universal” Business Language would require 3rd party
               extensibility, and history has shown that existing formats (like EDI)
               regularly have extensibility shoe-horned in. 1. The addition of “Must
               Ignore Unknown” rule, which specifies that consumers of instances
               that do not recognize content must ignore it and not fault. This
          10   enables forward compatible evolution. 2. NMS2 rule should say                                        Dave Orchard
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
General           It is my thinking that if extensions do not over-ride any semantics,
                  then the contract should still be legally binding. And so I thought if
                  there was ever a chance to get distributed extensibility in UBL, this
                  would be the last time I could comment. Hence why I proffered my
                  comments. I guess I do have one question, which is that I don't
                  see quite how it is possible to do distributed compatible evolution.
                  How does one side evolve without breaking the other, given that
                  the ns names are changed and the new types are not sent with
                  instances? I retain my concern that people who do not understand
                  the strict scoping of UBL will start referring to the UBL naming
                  rules. Perhaps some more material explaining the narrow and
                  legally focused scoping context for UBL Naming would help? Or
                  even some text around "if UBL had wanted a more general
                  purpose solution, then other alternatives using wildcards would
                  have been examined?"



            18                                                                                                           Dave Orchard
                  - footnote on p. 10 - Reference should be to CCTS 2.01, Nov.
p10 footnote 19   2003.                                                                                                  Sall
           30     The statement... "This specification documents the naming and design
                  rules and guidelines for the construction of XML components from
                  ebXML Core Components."appears to have been changed from the more
                  correct ..."This specification documents the naming and design rules and
                  guidelines for the construction of XML components for the UBL
                  vocabulary." This latter statement concurs with the current body of the
                  Introduction (lines 180-181). The former belongs to ATG2. I thought we
            20    had agreed to chnage this already.                                                                     McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
       189        Given the charter above it is not "the UBL Library Content Subcommittee
                  will use this document to create normative form schema for business
                  transactions." it should be the Tools and Techniques SC who are the
                  primary audience within UBL.
             21                                                                                                          McGrath
       199        "two parties using objects" should say "two parties using document
                  components". we don't just define objects.


             22                                                                                                          McGrath
       207        The example for [Definition] says 'definitions are normative' which is
                  untrue and may be misleading especially as in lines 217-218 we say 'only
                  rules are normative'.
           23                                                                                                            McGrath
       225 24     Appendix A should say Appendix C                                                                       McGrath
       228 25     Appendix A should say Appendix C                                                                       McGrath
       294 26     xCBL is never defined.                                                                                 Sall
       309        the reference to XML DTD based systems is too specific. the argument
                  applies to all types of XML vocabularies regardless of what schema
                  language they use.



             27                                                                                                          McGrath
                                                                                       Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                              for Comment Change          Submitter
       319        This section should reference the CM paper.




             28                                                                                                    McGrath
       347        I have previously made the comment that UBL does not employ the
                  methodology described in the CCTS - because the CCTS does not have
                  one.




           29                                                                                                      McGrath
       348 30     Don't we reference CCTS 2.01, not CCTS 2.0 ?                                                     McGrath

       349 31     version 2.01                                                                                     Sall
                                                                                       Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                              for Comment Change          Submitter
       355        We should say that ebXML CC are syntax-independent and that UBL is
                  an XML respresentation of these.




             32                                                                                                    McGrath
       380        We should make a clear statement that UBL is a library of BIEs.




           33                                                                                                      McGrath
       390 34     Are all BBIEs complexTypes?                                                                      Sall
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
       396        Typos: 2 periods and the first of many mis-spellings of 'specialized' as
           35     'specialised'.(needs global search and replace - i wont list them all)                                 McGrath
       398 36     Typos: representationterms is mis-spelt                                                                McGrath
                  Inconsistent British vs. US spelling of Specialised vs.
       400 37     Unspecialized                                                                                          Sall
       401        When we say facets are we including sets of possible values (e.g. code
                  sets) as well?




             38                                                                                                          McGrath
                                                                                              Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                     for Comment Change          Submitter
       402        I suspect DatatypeDatatype is not what is meant. But this is a good
                  opprtunity to suggest this naming convention of using "ccts:", "ubl:" and
                  so forth is being used inconsistently and is more confusing than
                  enlightening. It makes sentences terribly difficult to follow.




             39                                                                                                           McGrath
       405        This document has a problem keeping the concept of data type (as used by
                  CCTS) and datatype (as used by XSD) separate - they work at different
                  levels of data definition. i thought we had agreed that we would use
                  "datatype" for the XSD and "Data type" for the CCTS.




             40                                                                                                           McGrath
                  Figure 2-3 in the UN/CEFACT NDR is more clear than this one re:
       423 41     XSD artifacts                                                                                           Sall
       428 42     wrong font used                                                                                         Sall
                                                                                            Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
       442        The statement about OAG is not correct and it may be best to leave this
                  out.




             43                                                                                                         McGrath




       531 44     Example out of context, so it does not illustrate the point it follows.                               Sall
                                                                     Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                            for Comment Change          Submitter
       550        'pieces of information' is actually 'meta-data'.




             45                                                                                  McGrath
                                                                                         Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                for Comment Change          Submitter
       557        NMC1: I am not sure, but if we have an ABIE used in more than one
                  association wouldn't this mean the ABIE had more than one FQP?


             46                                                                                                      McGrath
       567        the term 'XML expression' may be better than 'development'.




             47                                                                                                      McGrath
       569        UBL is based on instantiating ebXML ccts:BusinessInformationEntities
             48   not CoreComponents.                                                                                McGrath
                                                                                            Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
       571        We do not define classes for BBIEs only ABIEs - BBIEs are properties of
                  object classes.




             49                                                                                                         McGrath
       572        It appears this last sentence duplicates the previous one.
             50                                                                                                         McGrath
                                                                                              Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                     for Comment Change          Submitter
       680        This argument for the use of local codes is at odds with the fact that we
                  have several mandatory codes defined in the UBL library.




             51                                                                                                           McGrath
                                                                              Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                     for Comment Change          Submitter


       729 52     Undefined: <subtype> [see also following page]                                          Sall



                  Semantics: you don't "release" a namespace, you release a
       760 53     language                                                                                Sall
       773        the variable known as <name> should be defined.




             54                                                                                           McGrath
       800        the variable known as <name> should be defined.

             55                                                                                           McGrath
                                                                                                   Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                          for Comment Change          Submitter
       852        I still find this logic difficult to follow. Is it saying..."The xsd:extension
                  mechanism ensures that minor version will be backward compatible
                  within their major version."




             56                                                                                                                McGrath
                                                                                    Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                           for Comment Change          Submitter
       862        [VER10] This is not an NDR rule it is a UBL principle. Also the
                  statement is not correct. No UBL version should break semantic
                  compatibility with prior versions.



             57                                                                                                 McGrath
       869        there are some hyphens "-" which don't seem right here.


             58                                                                                                 McGrath




       886 59     Namespace prefixes in Figure 3.1 do not match those in line 896                               Sall
                                                                                               Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                      for Comment Change          Submitter
       908        Figure 3-2 Classes: the title is misleading - i would have thought 'schema
                  dependency' is more descriptive.




             60                                                                                                            McGrath



                  Figure 3-3 has inconsistent case conventions. Also, shouldn't the 3
       918 61     modules in lower right also have import arrows?                                                          Sall
       972 62     "Ed Note" needs to be resolved                                                                           Sall
       972 63     Editorial note still in here.                                                                            McGrath
                                                                                                Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                       for Comment Change          Submitter
       974        terms should be separated by spaces




             64                                                                                                             McGrath
                  Should be xsd:complexType with l/c 'c'. This mistake appears
       981 65     repeatedly, such as on page 36                                                                            Sall
       988        [SSM10] i am not sure why this is a rule or what it actually means. do we
                  need a rule that says we refer to this module by its name? in what sense is
                  the phrase "ubl:COmmonAggregateComponents Schema Module" used?
                  this also applies to [SSM12](lines 1017-1018),[SSM14](lines 1040-
                  1041),[SSM17](lines 1078-179) and [SSM19](lines 1104-1105)




             66                                                                                                             McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line              Comment                                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
       997        [NMS8]is this rule defining the namespace prefix to be used. why not say
                  so? see also [NMS10] (lines 1027-1028), [NMS12] (lines 1055-1056),
                  [NMS14](lines 1089-1090) and [NMS16] (lines 1113-1114).




             67                                                                                                          McGrath
       999        terms should be separated by spaces
             68                                                                                                          McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
       1003        The section that reads..."The BBIE Properties are reusable in multiple
                   BBIEs and per the CCTS are of type BBIE Property Type which are in
                   turn of type Datatype. The BBIEs are reusable across multiple schema
                   modules and per the CCTS are of Type BBIE Property Type."- is
                   confusing. Is it trying to say..."BBIE Properties Types may be used for
                   multiple BBIEs across multiple schema modules. Each BBIE Property
                   Type is in turn a Data type as defined by the CCTS."?




              69                                                                                                         McGrath

       1044 70     "xsd:facet" is not an XSD element; "facet" is an XSD concept                                          Sall
                                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                                                        for Comment Change          Submitter
       1057        Datatypes should be Data types.


              71                                                                                                              McGrath
       1062        ccts:datatype defines a set of valid values and also facets (we have it does
                   earlier).




              72                                                                                                              McGrath

                   Inconsistent British vs. US spelling of Specialised vs.
       1065 73     Unspecialized                                                                                              Sall
       1069        UBL code list schema modules do not import CodeTypeUnspecialized
                   Datatypes to avoid circular dependencies.


              74                                                                                                              McGrath
                                                                                       Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                                             for Comment Change          Submitter
       1091        title should be "CCTS Specialized Datatypes schema modules" to be
                   consistent with other headings.




              75                                                                                                   McGrath
                                                                      Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                            for Comment Change          Submitter
       1096        the term 'users' should be 'implementors of UBL'




              76                                                                                  McGrath
       1097        the term 'users' should be 'implementors of UBL'
              77                                                                                  McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
       1121        should 'core component parameters' be 'core component parameters
            78     schema'?                                                                                              McGrath
       1130 79     Are the run-time schemas truly "normative"?                                                           Sall
       1134        Rather than refer to UBL library spreadsheets, they are called document
                   assembly models.



              80                                                                                                         McGrath
                   The documentation requirements for UBL are extremely onerous.
                   Unless free tools are made available that generate complete
                   documentation from the spreadsheet, it is doubtful that most
                   developers will provide this level of documentation. If it is not
       1136 81     easily generated, it is certainly to become out of date                                               Sall
       1138        "information identified by LCSC" should say "meta data from the UBL
                   document assembly models"




              82                                                                                                         McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line               Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
       1141        This sentence could be simplified by saying.. "For example, UBL assumes
                   a value of "ALL" for every ebXML context classification."




              83                                                                                                         McGrath




                   Term "Datatype" is confusing throughout the NDR since it has
                   multiple meanings in different contexts. Here, it seems to refer to
       1146 84     xsd:complexType.                                                                                      Sall
                   Should this be BBIE rather than ABIE? What does "not-applicable"
       1196 85     mean?                                                                                                 Sall
       1212        "synonym" should be "synonymous".
            86                                                                                                           McGrath
       1266        "Core Component" should say "Core Component Type".
            87                                                                                                           McGrath
       1289 88     e.g., SOAP                                                                                            Sall
       1294 89     What is the reasoning behind this bullet?                                                             Sall
       1300 90     and attribute groups                                                                                  Sall
                                                                                        Justification Recommended
Line             Comment                                                                for Comment Change          Submitter




                 To make this rule useful, NDR should include a long list of
                 examples of terms with US vs. Oxford spelling differences.
                 Especially true since even the NDR has inconsistencies in this
       1314 91   rule.                                                                                              Sall




       1328 92   The period character is legal in a XML name                                                        Sall

                 Need to understand heuristic for what acronyms and abbreviations
       1333 93   to use.                                                                                            Sall

                 How can Appendix B be a "living document" unless it is separately
       1338 94   reachable by a URI?                                                                                Sall
       1338 95   Appendix B needs updating. (see comments later)                                                    McGrath
                 Why isn't "US" part of the acronyms? For that matter, why aren't all
       1344 96   country codes                                                                                      Sall
                                                                                            Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                 for Comment Change          Submitter
       1385         "Core Component Type" should say "Core Component Types".
            97                                                                                                          McGrath
       1386 98       "ccts" should be "CCTS"                                                                            Sall
       1394         the type name for an ABIE does not have its object class removed. For
                    example, the ABIE 'Address' has a dictionary entry name of 'Address.
                    Details', its object class is 'Address' and its complexType name is
                    'AddressType'. The rule that follows ([CTN1]) is correct, but the
                    description preceeding it is not.




              99                                                                                                        McGrath
                    How are BBIE Properties distinguished from BBIEs, since a BBIE
       1406   100   is essentially an ISO 11179 property term?                                                          Sall
       1418   101    All examples should show both the before and after.                                                Sall
       1467   102   Should this be "xsd:simpleType" ?                                                                   Sall
       1532   103   typo: AggregateBuinssInformationEntities                                                            Sall



       1534 104     Why is ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty abbreviated?                                     Sall
                                                                                            Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                 for Comment Change          Submitter
       1556         "is bound to" could be better phrased as "re-uses".

              105                                                                                                       McGrath
       1565         [ELN4] is in the wrong place, it relates to BBIEs and should be after
                    [ELN2] (line1536 - section 4.3.2)




              106                                                                                                       McGrath
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                  for Comment Change          Submitter
       1573         [ATN1] needs to be extended with the truncation rule. that is, if the
                    object class of the supplementary component is the same as the object
                    class of Core Component Type or Data type to which it relates then the
                    object class term is dropped from the attribute name.




              107                                                                                                        McGrath
       1577         Add an example that shows ccts:SupplementaryComponent known as
                    "Code. Name" becomes ubl:attribute "name" for the
                    ccts:CoreComponentType "Code" and the complexType of "CodeType".

            108                                                                                                          McGrath
       1599 109     "Core Components Specification" missing "Technical"                                                  Sall
                                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                       for Comment Change          Submitter
       1621         Is confusing and unnecessary - this point is better made in section
                    3.2.2.1.for example, in line 1621 "Aggregate Business Information
                    Entities" should say "Association Business Information Entities". these are
                    the relationshsips between two ABIES. also, UBL does not treat BBIEs as
                    object classes and i would not promote CCTS as defining object based
                    concepts.




              110                                                                                                             McGrath
       1627         [CTD1] should say "For every object class..." not "For every class...".
              111                                                                                                             McGrath
                                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                       for Comment Change          Submitter
       1669         The statement.."Basic Business Information Entities (BBIEs), in
                    accordance with the Core Components Technical Specification, always
                    have a primary representation term, and may have secondary
                    representation terms, which describes their structural representation."is
                    not correct. I think it means to say..."Basic Business Information Entities
                    (BBIEs), in accordance with the Core Components Technical
                    Specification, always have a representation term. This may be a primary
                    or secondary representation term. Representation terms describe the
              112   structural representation of the BBIE."                                                                   McGrath


       1693 113     What is a "cct:NameType"?                                                                                 Sall
       1695         The text belongs in section 2.1. The rule [CTD6] seems redundant. apart
                    from simpleType and complexType what else could Data types be defined
                    as?


              114                                                                                                             McGrath
                                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                       for Comment Change          Submitter
       1709         The phrase, "The ccts:UnspecialisedDatatypes reflect the instantiation of
                    the ccts:CoreComponentTypes", should say "The
                    ccts:UnspecializedDatatypes reflect the instantiation of the Representation
                    Terms of the ccts:CoreComponentTypes".




            115                                                                                                               McGrath
       1710 116     the fonts are confused in this section.                                                                   McGrath

       1749 117     There is no XSD element called "xsd:built-in". Audit rest of NDR.                                         Sall
       1800 118     and "not permitted".                                                                                      Sall
       1808         this section has no content?
            119                                                                                                               McGrath
       1814         [ELD1] if the term 'class' is supposed to embrace all elements used then
                    what about codes and IDs which are local?



              120                                                                                                             McGrath
                                                                                                 Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                      for Comment Change          Submitter
       1830         the phrase "...and ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntities" should be "...or
                    properties like ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntities".




              121                                                                                                            McGrath
       1832         rather than say "reference" it may be better to say "re-use".




            122                                                                                                              McGrath
       1835 123     [ELD4] needs an example                                                                                  Sall
                                                                                           Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                for Comment Change          Submitter
       1848         it is worth adding some text that says something about how qualified
                    BBIEs are re-uses of BBIEs in a specific context.




              124                                                                                                      McGrath
                                                                                                  Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                       for Comment Change          Submitter
       1874         [ATD2]Identifier. Content is not an attribute, it is expressed in the value
                    of the element.




              125                                                                                                             McGrath
                    There is no XSD element called "xsd:SchemaExpression". Define
       1888 126     term.                                                                                                     Sall

       1901 127     What is "DatatypeSchema"?                                                                                 Sall
       1901         Is this the correct title? - the rule applies to all UBL schema locations.
            128                                                                                                               McGrath
       1908 129     is [ATD7] is a repetition of [ELD6] (section 5.2.4)?                                                      McGrath
       1912         [ATD8] repeats [ELD9] (section 5.2.6)




              130                                                                                                             McGrath
                                                                                           Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                for Comment Change          Submitter
       1914         "handle them as schema modules" could say "handle them as individual
              131   schema modules".                                                                                   McGrath
       1926         [CLD1] not all ubl codes are defined.




              132                                                                                                      McGrath
                                                                               Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
       1935         [CLD3] code lists can be restricted as well as extended.




              133                                                                                          McGrath

       1987 134     Need example.                                                                          Sall
                                                                                             Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                  for Comment Change          Submitter
       2035         This section should reference the CM paper.




              135                                                                                                        McGrath
       2094         [IND5] does this duplicate [ELD6] (section 5.2.4)?


            136                                                                                                          McGrath
       2102 137     This introduction isn't necessary here.                                                              McGrath
       2110 138     "(DOC0" should be "(DOC)"                                                                            McGrath
       2148         The title should be 'Approved Abbreviations'. Abbreviations include
                    initialisms, acronyms and apocopations. DUNS would be most likely used
                    as an Agency ID value - so i suggest we dont need it here. It is not
                    normally a property term. There are also some entries missing
                    here...GUID "Globally Unique Identifier" UNDG "United Nations
                    Dangerous Goods" CV2 "Credit Card Verification Numbering System"




              139                                                                                                        McGrath
                    Rules are worded awkwardly. How about something like this: "The
1781-1795     140   'type' attribute of each CCT:SupplmentaryComponent...."                                              Sall
                                                                                           Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                for Comment Change          Submitter

1807-1828     141   Section numbering is incorrect. 5.2.1 is empty and 5.2.6 is wrong.                                 Sall
1969-1973     142   "XSD Simple Type" used 3 different ways in these lines.                                            Sall
                    These are NOT element names in the XSD language:
443 - 447     143   xsd:schemaModule, xsd:Datatype                                                                     Sall
601 - 669           We should use an example that incldues either a code or ID so we can
                    show how they are not global.
              144                                                                                                      McGrath




769-788       145   Inconsistent use of URN syntax. Is it ":-" or "-"?                                                 Sall
Appendix C          NB No line numbers in this section?
Technical
Terminology   146                                                                                                      McGrath
Appendix C          "class diagram" this looks unfinished - it mentions OMG and RUP
Technical           definitions.
Terminology




              147                                                                                                      McGrath
Appendix C          "component" - this is not the way UBL uses this term.
Technical
Terminology
              148                                                                                                      McGrath
                                                                                               Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                    for Comment Change          Submitter
Appendix C          "context driver" - not the correct definition
Technical
Terminology   149                                                                                                          McGrath
Appendix C          "core component catalog" - not applicable here and not used in the text
Technical
Terminology   150                                                                                                          McGrath
Appendix C          "core component library" - not applicable here and not used in the text
Technical
Terminology   151                                                                                                          McGrath
Appendix C          "core component type" - the text should be "A UBL BIE consists of one
Technical           and only one Content Component Type that carries the actual content plus
Terminology         one or more Supplementary Components giving an essential extra
                    definition to the Content Component." also I am not sure CCTs can't have
                    a business context (look at the definition of Amount - definitely a
              152   commercial definitions in the domain of finance).                                                      McGrath
Appendix C          "datatype" - both different defintions used here (XSD and CCTS are not
Technical           the same).
Terminology   153                                                                                                          McGrath
Appendix C          "Instance root/doctype" - not sure this is needed, complete or sensible.
Technical
Terminology


              154                                                                                                          McGrath
                                                                                              Justification Recommended
Line                Comment                                                                   for Comment Change          Submitter
Appendix C          "Lower-level element" - is this the right meaning?
Technical
Terminology


              155                                                                                                         McGrath
Appendix C          "Naming Convention" - we don't have these for Core Components but we
Technical           do for BIEs and supplementary components.
Terminology   156                                                                                                         McGrath
Appendix C          "Schema" - not the right definition
Technical
Terminology   157                                                                                                         McGrath
Appendix C          "schema module" - defined twice
Technical
Terminology   158                                                                                                         McGrath
Appendix C          "Syntax Neutral Model" - says "TBD" (i prefer syntax-independent model,
Technical           syntax-neutral is an impossibility)
Terminology   159                                                                                                         McGrath
Appendix D

              160   [CCTS] - should be version 2.01                                                                       McGrath
Appendix D    161   [CCFeedback] - not applicable                                                                         McGrath
Appendix D    162   [GOF] - not applicable                                                                                McGrath
Appendix D    163   (XHTML) - do we use this ?                                                                            McGrath
UBL Resolution

Noted.

This is not an NDR
issue.



Noted.



We find this a rather
unprofessional
comment.
The audience for this
document is technical
and we assume a
basic level of
knowledge of XSD.
We have provided
examples where we
felt necessary,
however the vast
majority of these rules
are simple XSD related
rules and the text
provides sufficient
clarification.
UBL Resolution


The following inserted
in section 1.3:
Keywords – keywords
reflect concepts or
constructs expressed
in the language of their
source standard.
Keywords have been
given an identifying
prefix to reflect their
source. The following
prefixes are used:

W3C XML Schema
Definition Language

15000-5 ebXML Core
Components Technical
Specification

OASIS Universal
Business Language



See resolution to
comment 6
UBL Resolution

Opinion



Noted
UBL Resolution
The statement that the
UBL Naming and
Design Rules do not
allow compatible
evolution is not quite
correct. They do allow
it, but in a manner that
is different from what
you and Norm
recommend. The main
difference is perhaps
rooted on the fact that
you deal with the
broadest possible
number of cases,
whereas we deal with
one very particular
one. From the very
beginning of the
activities of the NDR
sub-committee we
recognized that the
aim of the whole
exercise is to enable
people and processes
to produce business
documents with the
UBL Resolution

There is an
assumption that
validation against the
proper schema will
take place at the
receiving end.
Business scenarios
include agreements
before the exchange of
documents;
agreements can
include things as trivial
as the location of the
schema(s) to be used
in the exchange of
documents. Some
clarification text has
been added.
See resolution to
comment 30.




Concur.
UBL Resolution
Reworded to: Our
primary target
audience are the
members of the UBL
Technical Committee.
After discussion, we
agreed to change to
"XML constructs" to
better reflect the actual
output.
Definitions are in fact
normative. Line 217
has been changed to
reflect this.
Concur.
Concur.
Footnote inserted
The UBL context
methodology is
discussed in the
Guidelines for the
Customization of UBL
Schemas available as
part of UBL 1.0.
UBL Resolution
Agree. Section
formatting updated and
the following attached:
"The UBL context
methodology is
discussed in the
Guidelines for the
Customization of UBL
Schemas available as
part of UBL 1.0."

We respectfully
disagree. It does
contain a methodology
in Section 5 as well as
the sum total of all of
the normal rules in
Section 6.
Agreed. Good catch.
See resolution to
comment 30.
UBL Resolution

Concur. Changed to:
Syntax neutral Core
Components are
intended to form the
basis of business
information
standardization efforts
and to be realized in
syntactically specific
instantiations such as
ANSI ASC X12,
UN/EDIFACT, and
XML representations
such as UBL.
Concur. Changed to:
UBL consists of a
library of
ccts:BusinessInformati
onEntities. In creating
this library, UBL has
defined how each of
the
ccts:BusinessInformati
onEntity components
map to an XSD
construct (See figure 2-
3).
See figure 2-3.
UBL Resolution

Fixed.
Concur.
See resolution to
comment 35.

 Actually, this was a
confusing use of the
word facet as it
addresses much more
than the facets of the
built in xsd:dataTypes.
We have replaced the
word facet with
"allowed values or
ranges" which does in
fact cover those
additional items you
identified. Also
corrected line 413.
UBL Resolution
DatatypeDatatype was
a ghost from a
previous version. We
believe that the
distinction gained by
the use of xsd:, ubl:,
and ccts: is important
and needs preserved.
We will do a thorough
search of the
document to ensure
consistency.

It was agreed at the
Copenhagen meeting
to change all spellings
of Data Type to the
OED spelling of
Datatype and use the
ccts: and xsd: prefixes
to differentiate as
necessary.

Noted.
Resolved.
UBL Resolution
Reference removed
from sentence at line
442. New sentence
added after line 447 as
follows: UBL continues
to work with
UN/CEFACT and the
Open Applications
Group to develop a
single normative
schema for
representing
ccts:CoreComponentT
ypes.

Example clearly relates
to the preceeding rule.
The definition of
document schema is
necessary to explain a
term in the rule and
before the example.
UBL Resolution
After further review, we
determined that there
is no dictionary. After
discussion with the
library development
team, we changed the
sentence to the
following: A primary
aspect of the UBL
library documentation
are its spreadsheet
models. The entries in
these spreadsheet
models fully define the
constructs available for
use in UBL business
documents. We also
changed the
paragraph at line 559
to: "The fully qualified
path anchors the use
of that construct to a
particular location in a
business message.
The definition of the
construct identifies any
semantic
UBL Resolution
The ABIE will be used
as an ASBIE that will
always resolve to
single unique xPath
expression.

After discussion, we
agreed to change to
"In keeping with UBL
guiding principles, xml
related modeling
constraints are limited
to those necessary to
ensure consistency in
development of the
UBL library." as the
restrictions are for the
development of the
library, not just their
normative
representation in
schema.

Concur.
UBL Resolution

Concur. Changed to:
"UBL is based on
instantiating ebXML
ccts:BusinessInformati
onEntities. UBL
models and the XML
expressions of those
models are class
driven. Specifically, the
UBL library defines
classes for each
ccts:AggregateBusines
sInformationEntity and
the UBL schemas
instantiate those
classes. The attributes
of those classes
consist of
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntities."
See resolution to
comment 49.
UBL Resolution
The definition of
mandatory codes in
the library does not
negate the argument
for declaring codes
locally. After further
discussion with the
submitter, we have
clarified the intent of
the comment and have
revised the text as
follows: "The only
cases where locally
declared elements are
seen to be
advantageous are in
the case of Identifiers
and Code. Code lists
and identification
schemes are generally
specific to trading
partner and other user
communities. These
constructs can require
specific validation.
Consequently, there is
less benefit in
UBL Resolution
As defined in the
section, the source is
RFC 3121.

Disagree. You create a
new namespace and it
is released with each
new version of UBL.
Concur. Added the
following at line 778:
"For each document
produced by the TC,
the TC will determine
the value of the
<name> variable. "
Addressed by the
resolution to comment
54.
UBL Resolution
Actually, the xsd
extension mechanism
does not guarantee
backwards
compatability. The
concept is that
polymorphic
processing of multiple
minor versions is
possible if the nature
of the changes allowed
in minor versions is
tightly controlled. We
have changed the
sentence slightly to
read: "To ensure that
backwards
compatibility through
polymorphic
processing of minor
versions within a major
version always occurs,
minor versions must be
limited to certain
allowed changes." We
have deleted the two
follow-on sentences as
UBL Resolution

Add the following
clarification sentence:
"Semantic compatibility
in this sense pertains
to preserving the
business function."
em dashes were
inadvertently changed
to hyphens.
Corrected.
The prefixes in the
figure are mandatory,
those in the text are
both mandatory and
optional. Explanatory
text added.
UBL Resolution

Concur it is misleading.
Line 909 has been
changed to: "Another
way to visualize the
structure is by
example. Figure 3-2
depicts instances of
the various schema
modules from the
previous diagram." and
the title of Figure 3-2
has been changed to
"Schema Modules."
Case corrected.
Additional figures
removed as
unnecessary to the
intent of the figure.
Concur
Concur
UBL Resolution

Do not concur. The
name of the module is
CommonAggregateCo
mponents without
spaces. To ensure
understanding, all
occurences of these
schema modules in
section headers will be
placed into the
keyword font of
"courier".

Corrected.

These necessary rules
formalizes the name of
the CAC schema
module so as to
ensure it will be
referred to consistently
and the namespace
allocated to it will be
harmonized with the
name of the module
and definitive.
UBL Resolution
The rule is defining the
namespace prefix to
be used. To clarify, we
have inserted the
following at line 688:
"For each UBL
namespace, a
normative token is
defined as its prefix.
These tokens are
defined in Section 3.6.
"
See resolution to
comment 64
UBL Resolution




Concur it is confusing.
We have deleted text
to simplify. It now
reads: "The UBL
library will contain a
wide variety of
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntities. These
ccts:BasicBusiness
InformationEntities are
based on
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmation
EntityProperties. BBIE
properties are reusable
in multiple BBIEs. As
defined in rule CTD1,
each of these
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmation
EntityProperty classes
is defined as an
xsd:ComplexType."
See resolution to
related comment 7
UBL Resolution
Disagree. See
previous related
comment regarding the
use of the term.

The only preceeding
reference to facets in
respect to CCTS was
at line 398 and this
was incorrect. We
have replaced the
word facets at line 398
to values to align with
1062 so that facets are
used consistently to
only refer to the facets
of the built in
xsd:datatypes.
See resolution to
McGrath comment this
issue.
Concur - good catch as
we missed this when
we eliminated this
module. Sentence
deleted.
UBL Resolution

Partially concur. We
have added the term
Schema Module to the
section header.
However, the title of
the schema module
needs to be UBL
instead of CCTS as
CCTS defines no
specialized datatypes.
UBL Resolution
We think the sentence
is actually somewhat
confusing and
redundant - as are the
first and second
original sentences.
We have rewritten the
whole paragraph as
follows: "The
ubl:SpecializedDatatyp
e is defined by
specifying restrictions
on the
ccts:CoreComponentT
ype that forms the
basis of the
ccts:Unspecialized
Datatype. To ensure
the consistency of UBL
specialized Datatypes
(ubl:SpecializedDataty
pes) with the UBL
modularity and reuse
goals requires creating
a single schema
module that defines all
ubl:SpecializedDatatyp
See resolution to
comment 76
UBL Resolution
Agree. Also added the
distinction UBL.
yes

Actually, in the index to
CD1 they are called
"spreadsheet models".
We have adjusted the
text accordingly.




Noted.

Changed to: "UBL
annotations will consist
of information currently
required by Section 7
of the CCTS and
supplemented by
metadata from the
UBL spreadsheet
models" to ensure
consistancy with the
resolution to comment
80
UBL Resolution

The NDR represents a
discussion on the
mechanism. The
proposed replacement
is more appropriate for
the UBL 1.0 release.
Changed text
preceeding the rule to:
"The following rules
describe the
documentation
requirements for each
ubl:SpecializedDatatyp
e and
ubl:UnspecializedDatat
ype definition."
1 - No. 2 - it means it
doesn't apply.
Disagree. See Rule
S48 in CCTS.
Concur. Change
made
Editorial.
explanatory
Disagree.
UBL Resolution

A simple perusal of the
OED and Merriam-
Webster is sufficient to
illustrate this point
without unnecessarily
cluttering the
document.
The reviewer
misunderstood that
"other characters not
allowed by W3C XML"
was mutually exclusive
to the other constructs
mentioned in the
sentence. The word
and has been removed
to add to
understanding.
Users only need to
know what the
approved list is.
A URI has nothing to
do with the status of
the document.
Noted.
Because they are
codes.
UBL Resolution
Concur. Change
made.
Concur.

Changed to: " UBL
xsd:complexType
names for
ccts:AggregateBusines
sInformation
Entities will be derived
from their dictionary
entry name by
removing separators to
follow general naming
rules, and appending
the suffix “Type” to
replace the word
“Details.”

Disagree. See CCTS.
Disagree.
Concur.
Concur.
we abbreviated in the
rules. Will be
addressed in next
version.
UBL Resolution
An element does not
use a type, it is "of" or
"bound to" a type.

We agree the rule
would be better
located in Section
4.3.2, but for continuity
and alignment of rule
numbers with UBL 1.0
we will keep it as is
and will mark for
changed in ubl 1.1 or
2.0 as deemed
appropriate.
UBL Resolution
In the interests of
preserving the rules as
published, we
compromised by
inserting the following
text after the rule:
"UBL currently
truncates the
supplementary
component attribute
name. Specifically, if
the object class of the
supplementary
component is the
same as the object
class of Core
Component Type or
Data type to which it
relates, then the object
class term is dropped
from the attribute
name."
Added limited example
for Code. Name and
attribute code. No
need other two
aspects.
Concur
UBL Resolution
Removed for
simplification the
following: "The main
exception to this form
of representation
concerns Aggregate
Business Information
Entities, which
represent the
relationship between
an aggregate “parent”
object and its
aggregate properties,
or children." and
reworded the last
sentence in the
paragraph to read "In
the UBL model,
ccts:AggregateBusines
sInformationEntities
are considered
classes(objects)." This
also addresses
comment 111.
Handled this way to
avoid changing rule.
Will review in next
See resolution to
comment 111.
UBL Resolution




Concur.

the xsd instantiation of
the CCT Name. Type.
The point of the rule is
not that they will be
simple or complex
types, but that one
must be defined for
each. Unchanged.
UBL Resolution

Representation terms
are naming
mechanisms only - not
real things. The
unspecialised
datatypes reflect the
CCTs, they are
differentiated into a
many to one
relationship because
there are different
ways of using the CCT.
The representation
term only reflects the
way the CCT is being
used.
Corrected.

Keyword Concept
Disagree
Fixed numbering for
section.

We assume ELD3 is
meant here. See
resolution to comment
110 which serves to
clarify this as well.
UBL Resolution
Deleted "and
ccts:BasicBusiness
InformationEntities
are" to ensure
consistency with
previous comment
resolutions.


Elements don't use or
reuse types, they are
of or bound to a type.
To make the sentence
completely accurate, it
has been reworded to:
"As such, the element
declaration will bind
the element to the
xsd:complexType of
the associated
ccts:AggregateBusines
sInformationEntity."
Noted.
UBL Resolution

Added: "The
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntityPropertie
s are reused in
multiple contexts.
Their reuse in a
specific context is
typically identified in
part through the use of
qualifiers. However,
these qualifiers do not
change the nature of
the underlying concept
of the
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntityPropertie
s. As such, qualified
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntityPropertie
s are always bound to
the same type as that
of its unqualified
corresponding
ccts:BasicBusinessInfo
rmationEntityPropertie
s."
UBL Resolution
Te ensure consistency
with the rules
contained in UBL 1.0
checklist, the rule is
not changed, but the
following is inserted:
[Note:] Rule ATD2,
while being part of UBL
version 1.0, is
deprecated. It will be
deleted in the next
version of UBL as its
deletion does not
affect backwards
compatability.

Typo. Fixed.
See resolution to
comment 128
Removed inadvertent
use of word Datatype.
No.
Actually, the proofer
made a mistake
inserted an erroneous
space and
decapitalization.
Fixed.
UBL Resolution

Noted.
That is a library issue.
Since values have not
been defined, there is
no violation of the rule.
When they are
defined, they will be in
a separate schema
module. No change to
the NDR made.
UBL Resolution
Although you could, no
rules were created
regarding restrictions
because it was
understood that
restrictions to external
code lists would
require even greater
effort than developing
UBL code lists as
harmonization
becomes necessary in
addition to ownership
of the UBL version.
The restriction on
allowed codes should
be a user decision and
should be in their own
associated
documentation. IF at
such time that a
business case is
presented for UBL
itself restricting an
external code list
schema, the TC will
necessarily need to
Disagree as this is a
regular xsd function.
UBL Resolution
Added the following:
"The UBL extension
and restriction
recommendations are
discussed in the
Guidelines for the
Customization of UBL
Schemas available as
part of UBL 1.0."
We assume ELD7 is
meant here. These
are complimentary
rules.
Disagree.
Fixed.

With respect to
acronyms - disagree.
With respect to
abbreviations we have
added explanatory text
regarding those
approved by the NDR,
and the transfer of the
list to the TC as a
committee of the
whole.
Disagree. No change
made.
UBL Resolution
See resolution to
comment 119
Corrected.

Concepts
The point of this
section is reusable
elements.
URN separators are
colons, the dash in
these instances are
used within a given
URN field.



software limitation

There are two
separate and distinct
definitions provided -
one from OMB and
one from RUP. We
have added a carriage
return to distinguish
between the two.
Changed to: "One of
the individual entities
contributing to a
whole."
UBL Resolution

deleted as not used in
the spec

deleted as not used in
the spec

deleted as not used in
the spec




Definitions is per
CCTS.


Differentiated.
Google it. See:
www.oasis-
open.org/committees/
ubl/200110/day4/ndrsc
/ndr-report-
20011101.htm
UBL Resolution
Added "Lower-level
elements consist of
intermediate and leaf
level." to the definition
and its occurrence in
Section 4.

Reserved for future
use.


Fixed


Fixed.


Fixed.

Fixed to reflect its
status as ISO 15000-5
deleted
Deleted
Yes - Line 285

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:7/17/2012
language:English
pages:86