Forum OpenACS Development: a UBL package?
Is UBL currently implemented in OpenACS? If so, how is it configured?
If not, is there any interest in a UBL package for OpenACS?
If so, any recommendations on how to approach it for increased use and support in OpenACS?
new year cheers,
assuming you mean Universal Business Language, the guys over at Project Open claim that PO "supports a subset of UBL 1.0". http://www.project-open.com/en/list-integration-links
hope that is of some help
You're right. Universal Business Language as a subset of ebXML http://ubl.xml.org/ebXML
I appreciate fully respect Project Open's approach to solutions. However PO hasn't met significant requirements in the problem domains I've been working on. For example, the apparent incompatibility of their license with Gnu GPL2 projects: http://www.project-open.com/en/project-open-license-free
It will be a couple of months before I dedicate serious time to this.
Current plan is to integrate Naviserver's xml services with the OpenACS 4.5 ecommerce's payment-gateway paradigm once ledger123 is significantly ported.
The UBL package is licensed with a closed-source license, because it would be interesting for customers as part of our "enterprise open-source" strategy.
However, there was really nobody interested, apart from one customer...
The package is distributed and installed separately, so it doesn't need to be GPL V2. That's how for example the Oracle DB can work on top of Linux.
However, as I said, there wasn't much interest in the package. Just drop us a note at mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org and I can provide you with the source code. There may be dependencies on the rest of ]project-open[, but I believe the structure is quite straight-forward, so that you could adapt it easily. Also, it's only a limited number of UBL messages and only one direction.
By incompatibility, I mean that the code cannot be included in an OpenACS repository. Even GNU GPL v3 licensed packages are questionable for inclusion in a GPL v2 OpenACS repository. It depends on how the definition of a software program is interpreted.
I had planned to release packages under GPL license version 3, which I thought was compatible with version 2; However, it is not, so have licensed some packages under less restrictive version 2. There may be value in having a separate GNU GPL v3 repository at some point.
I'll send email shortly.