- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:30:48 -0500
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com>
- Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
On 02/12/2017 01:15 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: > Is there a reason to not make use of the UBL ontology? > https://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html (Also now > available in JSON. > <https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201701/msg00020.html>) http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-2.1-JSON/v1.0/cnprd01/UBL-2.1-JSON-v1.0-cnprd01.html#S-UBL-INVOICE-2.1-EXAMPLE-TRIVIAL.JSON Some high level thoughts: * Yes, /some/ part of UBL might be useful (but it's huge!) * Ferreting out the overlap between GS1, UBL, ARTS, is going to be difficult and challenging. * The UBL JSON mapping doesn't seem like it's standards track (it says so on the side of that document) * It's not clear who has implemented the JSON stuff, or UBL? How wide are the deployments? BTW, Joseph, did you see my email to the Credentials CG / VCTF wrt. UNCITRAL? Looks like we're aligned w/ their most recent findings wrt. Identity Management. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 02:31:33 UTC