A1261713604sRamf

1
Production Exchange Levels (PEL)
Level Name Description Addl Resources Reqd
0 Simple Single or Development Testing Use editors and receiver feedback for assurance Production After development testing, no production runtime checks are in place None (development tools, such as XMLSpy, editor, etc.)
1 Well-formed Production Check for well-formed XML Parser Staging or Middleware
2 Validation Production Validate document with XML Schema (in memory requirement). For further If-then checking stylesheet. For middleware solution rules are in proprietary format Parser (and XSL engine for addl checking) or Middleware
3 Business Checking Production Checking large or dynamic sources, such as tables, complex element relationships, switching of maps/checks based on trading partner (or if large transactions) Middleware (or Application)
2
Reference Environment
Outbound Reference
Inbound Reference
DB
DB
Msg
XML Payload
SQL Query
Map
Message
Message
Flat File Incl. XML
Flat File Incl. XML HTML
Map
Go/ No Go
Go/ No Go
Validate
Validate
Metadata Management
3
Above Level 0
Level Name Description Addl Resources Reqd
1 Well-formed Production Check for well-formed XML Parser Staging or Middleware
2 Validation Production Validate document with XML Schema (in memory requirement). For further If-then checking stylesheet. For middleware solution rules are in proprietary format Parser (and XSL engine for addl checking) or Middleware
XML Payload
Flat File Incl. XML HTML
Go/ No Go
Go/ No Go
Validate
Validate
Metadata Management
4
Business Rules
Level Name Description Addl Resources Reqd
3 Business Checking Production Checking large or dynamic sources, such as tables, complex element relationships, switching of maps/checks based on trading partner (or if large transactions) Middleware (or Application)
DB
XML Payload
Map
Flat File Incl. XML
Flat File Incl. XML HTML

• Mapping Today
• XSL stylesheets (can not read/write to DB).
  Little or no automated support from metadata
  management
• Middleware Limited XML Schema supported, if
  any. Some can use sample input instance as
  starting point

Map
Metadata Management
5
Metadata Management Support

• Mapping Today
• XSL extensions are possible, but tool vendors are
  building to existing middleware products or
  building transformation products where user has
  more control and features can be added
• Little or no automated support for complex
  business rules

• Mapping Future
• Products should provide better support for XML
  Schema as a starting point
• Proprietary products shown promise in the way of
  opening up business rule definitions (in XML)
• Linking to Registry for definitions, lookups and
  active mapping services

Today
XML Schema
Ontology
Registry Lookups
Business Layers
Stylesheet XSL
Metadata Management
6
Metadata Management Support
Registry Today
Registry Future

• Concept Logical Physical
• Element Relationships
• Rich Classifications
• Context lookups

• Data Dictionary
• File Listings with attributes
• Web/Internet hyper-linking

File Resolution
Element Resolution
Today
XML Schema
Ontology
Registry Lookups
Business Layers
Stylesheet XSL
XSL
XSD
XML
Referencing
Much like domain tables in databases
Context-based Extensions
Libraries
XSD
XSD
WSDL
Web Services Support (EISL, UDDI, etc.)
Types for user defined data limited assembly
definitions
7
Living in Todays Toolset
Adding Trading Partner Constraints

• Single Schema
• Simple management, superset errors are to be
  caught at level 3 inbound processing
• No additional constraints

XSD
XSD
XSD

• Additional Constraints Subsetting by
• Derivation (extending)
• Copy Paste

Derived
or copied

• Additional Constraints
• Subsetting by Substitution Groups only
  those business artifacts which constraints
  (codelists, etc.) are applied, main structure
  stays constant

XSD
XSD
linked
8
Linking to the Next Steps
Metadata Management
Adding Trading Partner Constraints

• Users need to buy into Element Resolution,
  requires understanding of Return on Investment
  (ROI) - reuse, context sensitivity, reduction
  duplication
• Critical for EISL vision and providing standard
  mechanisms vs standard data
• Element Resolution tools need to be developed
  (internally or COTS)

File Resolution
Element Resolution
Today
XML Schema
Ontology
Registry Lookups
Business Layers
Stylesheet XSL
Classifications and associations added to
registry, generic abstract classes get created
for navigation and understanding
4
XSD
XML
3
Lookup calls to Registry return XML in the form
able to be used by middleware

X
2
Context-based Extensions
Libraries
1
XSD
XSD
Files are broken into Registry entries
Physical schemas are generated from Conceptual
artifacts (XML Schemas, XML)
9
Other Issues
10
Named Datatypes
Also reference previous email exchange Tom
Gavin article

• Bruces positions
• One level deep only to be used when enumerated
  lists (code lists) need to be reused
• No derivations by extending or restriction,
  primarily an element world.
• Naumans positions
• When in doubt, make it a datatype (golden rule)
• If the items content is to be reused, use named
  datatypes
• If the elements tag name need not be enforced,
  use named datatypes
• When enumerated lists (code lists) need to be
  reused, use named datatypes
• If the hiding of namespaces (for readability
  perhaps) in instance documents is important, use
  named datatypes (named datatypes do not require
  that their namespace carry through to their
  binding elements)
• Derivations (by extenstion or restrictions)
  limited to no more than 3

11
Substitution Groups

• Bruces positions
• Aliasing
• Conceptual Okay for definitions
• Phyisical not to be used (should strive for
  adding constraints, deciding ahead of time,
  otherwise processing of transaction becomes very
  complex)
• Reference class schema w/ user objects (eg,
  XBRLs usage of assets for item)
• Naumans positions
• can be used for aliases
• an element can participate in one and only one
  substitution group
• OAGIS is a big supporter of substitution groups,
  so we may want to investigate further
• limited capability, since they can only be used
  when substituting global elements
• inside ltallgt model groups, substitution groups
  can cause problems (since maxOccurs1
  automatically inside ltallgt groups, and if both
  the element and its substitute needs to be used,
  eg, DepartmentCode and TradingPartnerCode in the
  ATB)

12
Oracle subtypesand XSD equivalents
13
Oracle subtypes
Document
- DocID - Date
PO
- A
Contract
- B
14
A.xsd (uses Elements only, no Named Datatypes)
Document
PO
Contract
15
A.xsd - graphical view
16
B.xsd (uses named datatypes and elements)
Note to Nauman As shown, PO and Contract can
not standalone, they havent been defined as
global reusable components is this an oversight?
17
B.xsd - graphical view
18
C.xml (validated by both A.xsd and B.xsd)

• In this simple example, the difference between
  the 2 approaches is basically a wash
• In the text view, A.xsd has a cleaner and
  simpler look
• In the graphical view (XML Spy dependency), it is
  easier to see where reuse is taking place in
  B.xsd
• A.xsd is in fact slight longer than B.xsd

19
Introducing Named Groups D.xsd (uses named
groups and elements)
20
D.xsd - graphical view
Named groups
21
E.xml (validated by D.xsd)

• The content model is different from both A.xsd
  and B.xsd but that maybe the business
  requirement!
• Notice that Document becomes a group and
  therefore, does not show up in the instance doc
  only its content does (DocID and Date)

22
Metadata Generation and Deployment

• Business Users decide on Production Exchange
  Level (PEL) for their information integration
• Todays databases are the starting point for
  schemas (XSD) and programming classes
• Modeling (UML, Oracle Designer, etc.) provide
  schema (XSD) for data aspects
• Web services can be used to support functions
  such as validation (levels 1 2)
• Programs/tools can be developed or procured for
  easing documenting, designing and implementing.

• Guidelines, procedures and package descriptions
  need to be developed to assist developers/users
• Education of users
• Registry prototype needs to be upgraded and
  tested or alternative (webpage/DirFile) needs to
  be in place and online

23
Metadata Generation and Deployment
Cont

• Typically the W3C isnt focused on eBusiness, as
  per its charter to provide for core technologies.
  DFAS needs to specify areas where (1) additional
  constraints need to be imposed to support
  eBusiness, (2) areas which need to be extended to
  support eBusiness, (3) addressing the needs of
  DFAS database-centric environment, (4) where
  exchanges are dynamic, sometimes ad hoc, where
  the use of generated business artifacts from the
  current knowledge/tool base, (5) taking into
  account DFAS modeling and development policy, eg.
  ER/UML generated schemas, thus (6) addressing
  issues required to support DFAS enterprise
  metadata management vision.

• All approaches have their pros/cons and
  therefore, decisions on which to choose need to
  made on a case-by-case basis. DFAS guidance
  should outline each alternatives specifics, and
  suggest a preferred approach if business drivers
  do not dictate one method over another.