UBL-NDR-Issue-Tracker

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Description

Shared by: akgame

Tags

UBL-N, DR-Is

Stats

views:: 52
posted:: 11/28/2009
language:: English
pages:: 9

Public Domain

Document Sample

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Trac NDR king Rule ID Code
1 MDC1

Prio rity

Current NDR Rule Text

Issue, Comment or Action
The UBL CCT schema implements ebXML approved cctypes according to CCTS Table 8-1, with three exceptions: numeric, datetime, and indicator. The UBL CCT schemas do not contain the 'format' attribute for these three types. These have been cast as 'simple' types (which precludes adding more attributes). The spreadsheets and schemas of cctypes are currently quite different because EF is not reading the CCT spreadsheet - the CCT schema is generated manually as was originally provided by Gunther. In UBL, simple type doesn't restrict underlying the cct, but restricts directly the buil-int xsd types. Not all udts are direct restrictions. This rule doesn't provide for this. In UBL, simple type doesn't restrict underlying the cct, but restricts directly the buil-int xsd types. Not all udts are direct restrictions. This rule doesn't provide for this.

Discussion or Justification
Are there going to be Release Notes published somewhere, sometime? Consider the impact of the fact that we have removed the 'format' attribute and constrained these as simple types. Is this really how we want these represented in the future?

2 (on UBL Libraries and Schemas MUST only use ebXML Core hold) Component approved ccts:CoreComponentTypes.

2 3

all n/a

{deleted} See ID5 Discussion

2 (on 20041215: DEPRECATED hold)

STD1

CTD7

For every ccts:CCT whose supplementary components map directly onto the properties of a built-in xsd:Datatype, the ccts:CCT MUST be defined as a named xsd:simpleType 2 (on Every unspecialised Datatype must be based on a ccts:CCT hold) represented in the CCT schema module, and must represent an approved primary or secondary representation term identified in the CCTS.

See ID5 Discussion

Decide on need for generation of CC Types and UDT by UBL. Work towards convergence with ATG2. Obvious concerns: impact on legacy and the fact that ATG2 has always been a moving target, hence the misalignment we find ourselves in now, as our current implementation was put forward as the ATG2 method. Determine actions and timeline.

n/a

UBL-UnspecializedDatatypes: "Binary Object", and its secondary See ID5 Discussion representation terms ("GraphicType", "PictureType", "SoundType", and "VideoType") have "format" and "mimeCode" attributes in the spreadsheets, but are missing these attributes in the schemas, which instead have one attribute "characterSetCode". UBL-SpecializedDatatypes: Three attributes used for each of the code types in the spreadsheet (codeListNamespacePrefixID, codeListDescription, CodeListCredits) are not represented in the schemas. UBL-SpecializedDatatypes: The SDT spreadsheet incorrectly has the codelist text file filename for the "Name" attribute, "Values" column, value. EF doesn't currently use the sdt spreadsheet at all. Work is underway in GEFEG to be able to improve the algorithm for importing SDT SS values. Will be done in a couple of weeks (as of 20041208). {deleted} Agreement from Jon that CodeListCredits are not needed any longer.

n/a

Need to align SDT SS, Codelist model and EF import ability. Dependency on completion of Codelist model.

9 10

n/a

Eventually registration of constructs in schemas should be automated so can be submitted to registration authority and metatdata will automatically go into the registristrion process for the schemas. UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be in the English language, using the primary English spellings provided in the Oxford English Dictionary. Check SS(s) element, attribute, and type names.

Follow up on registration requirements (CCTS Section 7).

GNR1

20041215: Oxford Dictionary prefers -ize endings. Do we need to include examples? Mavis: No. Jon previously distirbuted a study of terms used in UBL.

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Trac NDR king Rule ID Code
12 GNR4 GNR6

Prio rity
2

Current NDR Rule Text
Acronyms and Abbreviations: 20041215: (priority 2 for GRN4 only) [GNR4] UBL XML element, attribute, and simple and complex type names MUST NOT use acronyms, abbreviations, or other word truncations, except those in the list of exceptions published in Appendix B. [GNR5] Acronyms and abbreviations MUST only be added to the UBL approved acronym and abbreviation list after careful consideration for maximum understanding and reuse. [GNR6] The acronyms and abbreviations listed in Appendix B MUST always be used.

Issue, Comment or Action
Acronyms and Abbreviations: EF checks against NDR, but if acronym is in SS it is left alone. Resolve A&A list, usage, ownership, and maintenance. - Align SS and Schemas with final list and rules. Acronym for DUNS not completely specified.

Discussion or Justification
* MC, 20041106: The candidates need to be discussed by the entire TC once the list is made. Remember, it must be globally unique to be considered. We have already violated this tenant with non-globally unique acronyms and must exercise greater diligence in the future.

13 14

GNR7 ATN1

UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be in singular form unless the concept itself is plural. 1 for Each CCT:SupplementaryComponent xsd:attribute "name" NDR MUST be the Dictionary Entry Name object class, property term and representation term of the ccts:SupplementaryComponent with the separators removed.

Check SS for conformance. If the object class is identical to the RT of the data type (or cct or whatever) then UBL removes the Object Class from the name. EF and SS do the same thing, which is different than what it says in this rule. ELN3 covers elements, but not attributes. Review rule for SS UBL name creation. 1.1: Change rule. Something like "If the Object Class of the Supplementary Component is identical to the Primary Representation Term of the datatype of the cctype then the Object Class will be removed." This is how cct ss, sdt and udt is probably done. MC, 20041106: Not sure I agree with changing the rule. Would like more discussion/thought on this. Jan 19 2005: [Mark Crawford] We need to review the ATG rules rules 115-119

GSX1

UBL Schema MUST conform to the following physical layout …

UBL schema organization is different than GSX1: - short copyright Review schema layout/format - Update schemas to agreed layout. Change rule accordingly for 1.1 not the same - full copyright should be at end of document - need to align order for declaration of namespaces and order of imports and follow structure outlined in GSX1 - include section head comment lines, except when section is empty. GXS1 doesn't include, but UBL comment header currently does include: - "Universal Business Language (UBL) Schema 1.0" - URLs to UBL and OASIS web sites "Document Type" - "Generated On" (date) - tribute to Mike - additional comment lines for additional clarity.

NMC1

Each dictionary entry name MUST define one and only one fully EF doesn't explicitly check this, nor duplicate DEN's/names for objects. Clarify whether there's need for EF to explicity check this. qualified path (FQP) for an element or attribute. MC, 20041106: Remember: FQP as the DEN not CCTS defined DEN

VER1 VER7

Relating to use of major/minor version numbers.

There is nothing in EF to automatically create version numbers. Now it Decide on versioning implementation. - Decide on strategy for is done manually; should EF consider automating this? MC, 20041106: storage/registry. This is more than an EF issue. We are also somewhat limited by EF’s non-registry/non-database approach. We need to decide how we are going to handle versioning of individual components in the spreadsheet.

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Trac NDR king Rule ID Code
18 DOC1

Prio rity
1

Current NDR Rule Text

Issue, Comment or Action

Discussion or Justification
1.1: Resolve discrepancy between Rule S28 of CCTS, which says that DTs must include Qualifier Term (mandatory), but DOC1 has it as 'optional'. MC, 20041106: We have already covered this. Rule S28 in CCTS is on the "to be fixed" list.

The xsd:documentation element for every Datatype MUST UBL supplies only the mandatory set (ComponentType, DEN, Definition contain a structured set of annotations in the following sequence and RepresentationTerm). Even though the SS have Object Class and and pattern:… Object Class Qualifier, EF can't create these optional information items because no rules in ccts. Stems from same problem described in UDT section #5. MC, 20041106: Not sure I understand the EF constraint here.

DOC2

A Datatype definition MAY contain one or more Content Component Restrictions to provide additional information on the relationship between the Datatype and its corresponding Core Component Type….RestrictionType, RestrictionValue, ExpressionType (opt)

See Table 7-1 of CCTS. Examples of a CC RestrictionType for, say, 'String' type would be 'minimum length'. The RestrictionValue would be the actual value. There must be the above structured set of annotations for each restriction. Currently UBL has no documentation for Content Components or Supplementary Components.

DOC3

A Datatype definition MAY contain one or more Supplementary 1.1: Need clarification/resolution about where to find this information. Component Restrictions to provide additional information on the Not in CCP. relationship between the Datatype and its corresponding Core Component Type. If used the SCR must contain… The name of each UBL Code List Schema Module MUST be of the form: {Owning Organization}{Code List Name}{Code List Schema Module} UBL uses a completely different naming convention. Both the code list declaraion and data types are in the code list schema files now. What should be in a CL file?

CDL5

CTD1

NDR may need to consider how to handle type definitions for BBIE properties.

CTD7

Every unspecialised Datatype must be based on a ccts:CCT 1.1: Need clarification of what is meant by 'must be based on'. MC, represented in the CCT schema module, and must represent an 20041106: Noted. approved primary or secondary representation term identified in the CCTS. Anne: Text appearing after rule: "By design, But it seems we do restrict (and extend) our cc types in the UBLccts:CoreComponentTypes are generic in nature. As such, CoreComponentTypes-1.0.xsd. restrictions are not appropriate. Such restrictions will be applied through the application of Datatypes. Accordingly, the xsd:facet feature must not be used in the ccts:CCT schema module."

SSM10

Review implementation to see if we need to add anything. * MC, 20041106: The overall requirement for schema documentation is to provide for all documentation required by CCTS. This will position the ubl library as expressed in the spreadsheets to be stored as ebXML conformant core components. 20041202: See figure 7-1 and table 7-1 in CCTS. UBL doesn't use format restrictions so this won't apply to our schemas. This could possibly be used for Code Lists (to restrict the enumerations). MC, 20041106: This would be information that is already available for those few Supplementary Components who have a predefined restriction in CCTS,or that the library developers would create as part of defining a new SDT. May require new spreadsheet column to make more readily available for schema generation. There was intended to be a section in the schema format (as per GXS1) for code lists but this is not there right now - somehow gone. The CDL5 name relates to any time where you must refer to the code list, such as in the header or comments of the Code List or other schema files or documentation. It probably would be best to use this for the 'filename' part of the urn as well, but haven't gone there yet. Will have to look into this later. MC, 20041106: In UBL 1.0 NDR we treat BBIE Properties as well as ABIEs as classes. See the sentence preceeding the rule which explicitly states this. We may need to separately handle type definitions for BBIE Properties in UBL 1.1 NDR. 1.1: Need rule covering case where simple type doesn't restrict underlying type, but restricts underlying built-in xsd types, as in UBL. Not all udts are direct restrictions. MC, 20041106: See previous comments {unclear reference} regarding adopting CEFACT ATG CCT and UDT schemas which address this concern. 1.1: Check validity of rule w.r.t UBL implementation. MC, 20041106: Please identify exactly what restrictions/extensions are applied in the CCT schema module. If not specified in CCTS, then that is a fatal conformance issue. We also probably need to insert the word specialized in front of the word datatypes.

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Trac NDR king Rule ID Code
25 SSM10

Prio rity
1

Current NDR Rule Text
The ubl:CommonAggregateComponents schema module MUST be named "ubl:CommonAggregateComponents Schema Module" The ubl:CommonBasicComponents schema module MUST be named "ubl:CommonBasicComponents Schema Module" The ccts:CoreComponentType schema module MUST be named "ccts:CoreComponentType Schema Module" The ccts:UnspecialisedDatatype schema module MUST be named "ccts:UnspecialisedDatatype Schema Module" The ubl:SpecialisedDatatypes schema module MUST be named "ubl:SpecialisedDatatypes schema module"

Issue, Comment or Action
1.1: Need NDR clarification on where these terms are to be used.

Discussion or Justification
MC, 20041106: Concur.

26 27 28 29

SSM12 SSM14 SSM17 SSM19

3 3 3 2

1.1: Need NDR clarification on where these terms are to be used. 1.1: Need NDR clarification on where these terms are to be used. 1.1: Need NDR clarification on where these terms are to be used. 1.1: The plurality of the word 'Type' in the module name for SSM19 doesn't agree with that of of SSM14 and SSM17. UBL implements this word as a plural for all 3 cases (agrees with SSM19, but not SSM14 or SSM17). Need alignment of rules. 1.1: Recommend to remove as this is already an xsd tenet. No need to restate here and confusing where to apply. Or possibly move to CM document.

MC, 20041106: Concur. MC, 20041106: Concur. MC, 20041106: Concur. MC, 20041106: I would have preferred that UBL implemented in conformance to SSM14 and SSM17. 1.1: Should there be rules for the CCP also? MC, 20041106: Yes. MC, 20041106: This rule was originally left in because it was internal guidance for development of the extension methodology. There is no requirement to use xsd:final in xsd - it is just available for use. The extension methodology folks could just have easily said that "the annotation documentation element will contain detailed guidance on which element should be considered the "final" element for controlling extensions.." I recommend the rule remains as is.

GSX6

The xsd:final attribute MUST be used to control extensions.

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Recommended Change or Action

Submitter Name and/or Email

Responsible UBL SC
NDR Sessions

Status
Open

UBL TC Resolution

Due Date

Response By

(other) 20041215: DEPRECATE, concentrate on ID5 instead. Might have to punt on this for 1.1. EF can continue as is with this difference noted. Must be resolved for 1.1, however. NDR Sessions (other)

Status Values

Open
NDR Sessions Open

In Progress
NDR Sessions Open

Resolved
Jan 19 2005: [Mark Crawford recommneds}Review the ATG approach first. This is not a 1.1 issue. It would require a major version change. For 1.1 we need to align the schemas and the model. 20041215: Codelist content issue - will be tracked by Jon. LCSC: Library Content Open

Fixed
CL: Code List Work Team Open

Rejected
20041215: Library Content issue. LCSC: Library Content Open

20041215: Jon: General TC worklist, not a 1.1 issue.

(none)

(other) Open

Duplicate Referred to TC

(other)
20041215: AI for Jon to examine UBL DENs for ize vs. -ise, etc. LCSC: Library Content Open

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Recommended Change or Action
1.1: Update DUNS information in Appendix B. 20041215: Resolve A&A list/usage/ownership/maintenance. Update ss, schemas, and rules to reflect that. "Globally unique" is a difficult goal. "Fit for business purpose" may be sufficient. 1.1: Rule modification may be needed. GNR5 needs to be reviewed for validity.

Submitter Name and/or Email

Responsible UBL SC
NDR Sessions

Status
Open

UBL TC Resolution

Due Date

Response By

20041215: AI for Jon to examine UBL for plurals -- CONTENT issue 20041215: High priority for 1.1. Impacts EF.

LCSC: Library Content NDR Sessions

Open Open

20041215: Is there anything in the schema that isn't already in the rule that we want to keep. The schemas must conform with the order listed in the rule.

LCSC: Library Content

Open

20041215: Does EF really need to automatically check that? No NDR decided that this is not necessary.

NDR Sessions

Resolved

UBL Subcommittees and Work Teams
SSC: Software Open

MC: Please explain what features and functions you think an EF registry should have. SSC should come up with specific requirements.

SSC: Software

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Recommended Change or Action
What is the fix timetable. Additonally NDR should look at DOC1 to make it less ambiguous where we say that optional elements must be in a certain sequence. We should say smth like where optional elements are used, then they should appear in a certain pattern and order. [Mark Crawford] DOcC1 is technically correct, the CCTS rule is an error. I think we might have missed some of the metadata required in Section 7 of CCTS. This would be a minor version change. we will add a note to the NDR document that there is an error in CCTS. NDR to review the rule. MC agreed to change the rule to exempt code lists.

Submitter Name and/or Email

Responsible UBL SC
NDR Sessions

Status
Open

UBL TC Resolution

Due Date

Response By

LCSC: Library Content
NDR Sessions Open

HISC: Human Interface
LCSC: Library Content Open

NDR Sessions
1.1: Revisit with new code list model. MC, 20041106: The code list schema modules still need to follow this naming convention. CL: Code List Work Team Open

CL: Code List Work Team
NDR Sessions Open

(none)
NDR Sessions Open

SSC needs to identify why we did not comply with the rule.

SSC: Software

Open

UBL Naming and Design Rules 1.0 - Issue Tracker

Recommended Change or Action

Submitter Name and/or Email

Responsible UBL SC
NDR Sessions

Status
Open

UBL TC Resolution

Due Date

Response By

NDR Sessions NDR Sessions NDR Sessions NDR will look at the requirement for an additional rule and will advise which rules SSM14 and SSM17 need to be aligned with which. NDR will then pass this back to SSS .NDR will investigate. The Code List team advise they may want to use this rule. NDR will discuss this further with the CL team. NDR Sessions

Open Open Open Open

NDR Sessions

Open

Status Values Open In Progress Resolved Fixed Rejected Duplicate Referred to TC (other)

UBL Subcommittees and Work Teams SSC: Software LCSC: Library Content HISC: Human Interface NDR: Naming & Design Rules CL: Code List Work Team (none)