Re: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl-sbsc message






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

--

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








Subject: Re: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context




From: Stephen Green <>
To: Martin Forsberg <>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:58:24 +0000






Not being able to get to PSC meetings, I'd just say that I've always
agreed with this. But I'd add that subsets needn't imply a particular
context - they might but they can be orthogonal to context (depending
on how you view/define context too) - IMHO. So maybe more than just
context should be catered for.

Thanks

Stephen Green


On 17/02/06, Martin Forsberg <> wrote:
>
>
> Dear PSC (and SBSC),
>
>
>
> In the ongoing work within the Northern European working group on
> e-procurement an issue has come up that we need to find a solution for. We
> are developing and defining a subset for a couple of common business
> processes and business rules. The problem, in a nutshell, is that we can't,
> by just looking at a document instance, see what business process/context
> the instance belongs to. We need to identify the context by looking at the
> instance to decide what business rules (schematron), subset schema and
> optionally what work flow to apply. The Small Business Subset SC has
> developed a great method of defining context specific subsets, but the
> document instance (e.g. the invoice) doesn't reflect it.
>
>
>
>
>
> One of many solutions:
>
>
>
> A new BIE called "Document Context" of type URI or Identifier is added on
> document level (0..1).
>
>
>
> By adopting the UN/CEFACT context categories an URI or Identifier can be
> built.
>
>
>
> Example: urn:northerneurope:businessprocess123 or
> SE:OrderToInvoice
>
>
>
>
>
> From the cefact ndr.
>
>
>
> • Business Process Context Value: A valid value describing the Business
> Process contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In
> All Contexts'.  (BusinessProcessContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Geopolitical/Region Context Value: A valid value describing the
> Geopolitical/Region contexts for which this construct has been designed.
> Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (GeopoliticalOrRegionContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Official Constraints Context Value: A valid value describing the Official
> Constraints contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is
> 'None'.  (OfficialConstraintContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Product Context Value: A valid value describing the Product contexts for
> which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (ProductContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Industry Context Value: A valid value describing the Industry contexts for
> which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (IndustryContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Business Process Role Context Value: A valid value describing the Role
> contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> Contexts'.  (BusinessProcessRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Supporting Role Context Value: A valid value describing the Supporting
> Role contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> Contexts'.  (SupportingRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • System Capabilities Context Value: A valid value describing the Systems
> Capabilities contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is
> 'In All Contexts'.  (SystemCapabilitiesContextValue)
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know how precisely the construct of the URI/Id is to be defined by
> us or if it is up to the subset-groups to decide on this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I can't participate on Monday's conference call (PSC). Please
> let me know if I need to clarify the issue.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Forsberg
>
> SFTI (Single Face To Industry, Sweden)
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Martin Forsberg
> Sent: den 13 februari 2006 22:01
> To: ''
> Subject: Context in UBL document instances
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I promised to get back to the SC with some background on the context-problem
> we see in the northern European working group. I will try to discuss with
> the rest of the group before sending you a suggestion of a solution. I've
> tried to explain the problem to some people not in to the UBL details (see
> the attached document). I think it might give some background information on
> the problem.
>
>
>
> In the attached document I outline five different solutions and the one that
> I think is the best is number 3 (to use a new BIE).
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Martin Forsberg