Comments for SBDH 1.1 and TVR 1.0
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
$
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
IDSubmitter nameMailCountrySectionPage and line numberTypeCommentProposed changePreliminary editors comment
2
1Moved to TVR Sheet by Philip
3
2Iacopo Arduiniiacopo.arduini@regione.emilia-romagna.itItaly1.7page 8From Intercent-ER, no major comments either. We appreciated the introduction of additional identifiers, that was a big requirement for our ongoing projects. The only thing we point out is that in section 1.7, page 8, DOCUMENTID and PROCESSID are still referred as "Applicable Codes", and this might be a little misleading. We suggest to change it to "Reserved Codes" (adding also the two new TECHNICAL_VALIDATION_URL and TECHNICAL_VALIDATION_REQUIRED codes)accepted
Changed table header and added reserved codes
4
3Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.34Add reference/link and version number to "PEPPOL policy for use of Identifiers"accepted
Added chapters 1.1 ("Keywords") and 1.2 ("Normative references")
Added reference where applicable
5
4Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.44From a technical point of view an XML file that does not conform with this is not a valid xml-file in the first place… All XML must be well-formed and have the same encoding.acknowledged, no change
6
5Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.4Last sentenceWhy? Message envelope should always contain a valid PEPPOL document type (according to annex 5). Nested envelopes should be handeled through governance of valid document types, not in the envelope spec. From integrity point of view the message should always be same as “DocumentTypeId”?acknowledged, no change
7
6Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.5XPath examplesAdd XPath selector on Type to illustrate how to access one single elementStandardBusinessDocument/StandardBusinessDocumentHeader/BusinessScope/Scope[Type = 'DOCUMENTID']/InstanceIdentifieraccepted
Added 2 XPath expressions for both types
8
7Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.6First lineBusinessScope is by GS1 (the original standard) added to: “The business environment, circumstances, or scenario, in which trading partners conduct business is described by a set of domain context identifiers”. BusinessScope element is not a generic key/value store, but has a clearly defined purpose and meaning.-- to be discussed
9
8Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.6.1page 5, last lineThis is routing, not processing – see comments TVR. Breaks the intended use of BusinessScoperejected
Routing is a specific form of processing and the interpretation of document type identifier and process identifier is implementation specific
10
9Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.7HeaderVersionThe document is called SBDH 1.1, but keeps 1.0 in the Schema...-- to be discussed
11
10Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.7Sender/IdentifierUnformal - should refer to same policy as above in 1.3accepted
Text changed and reference added
12
11Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.7DocumentIdentification/StandardWeak forumlation - "normally". Either DOCUMENTID, natural name of XML-standard defining DOCUMENTID. For integrity reasons envelopes not containing a well-formed document of the standard refered to should be illegal and result in error.acknowledged, no change
That depends on the used syntax. As long as XML is used, that "normally" is true, but if a different syntax is used there might be different rules. The XSD for SBDH contains "processContents=lax" which requires that the content be valid only if XML processor can find its definition which allows for different content models.
13
12Rune Kjørlaugrkj@difi.noNO1.7DocumentIdentification/CreatedDateAndTimexs:dateTime is defined by w3 (https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime) and XML parsers support this. Should focus on what dateparts need to be there, not how they are formatted (i.e. you should always have timezone).acknowledged, no change
Agreed but having an additional example does no harm. Since the example does not contradict with what the W3C specification states I don't see an issue here.
Last feedback for 2018/03/18
14
13
15
14
16
15
17
16
18
17
19
18
20
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
SBDH 1.1
TVR 1.0
 
 
Main menu