MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))
ouch,
ouch -
I
agree with Tim that it's quite difficult to find the proper view and way.
Sometimes I feel that CCTS was made by many geniuses and then it has been handed
over to normal people, which have to do the diligence work to fill the gaps
these geniuses left.
The
CCs as of Bonn are TBG approved ones. Therefore more than a draft. But I do not
know whether this has to be considered as a UN Standard draft
already.
Hisano
mentioned several times that he is mainly interested in semantic
interoperability, i.e. to use the same CCTS methodology. As far as I see Mark
mentions that UBL does not fully meet the CCTS methodology. He explained this by
describing at least two issues. This are issues where all the other
CCTS pilots I know have the same interpretation. [off record: Mark is not
the chief cook here. He just has the same position.]
Additionally the different CCTS based projects came up with a lot of
detailed questions where they feel that CCTS is unclear or maybe wrong. They
want to fill the gaps I've mentioned above.
Considering the real need those guys expressed, we started a discussion
within the TBG and called the group ad hoc clarification. The current
result of these awful analyses can be found in the TBG17 Submission and
Procedure Document, which is an approved TBG document, I think. (Sue: is this
correct?) The discussions continue and I expect from the GEFEG Berlin
hosted meeting next week a further small step forward.
Michael
BTW:
this English English is what I have to read several times in order to understand
it. My dear native speakers: PLEASE us international English;-). You cannot
expect that the rest of the World will be able to speak this fine English today.
Maybe the world can, when the major language is U.S.will be Spanish, i.e. in 15
years from now.
ouch! i dont think anyone in UBL has a
desire for a different furrow - we just dont know what the proper one is.
as the UBL liaison to CEFACT, perhaps you can answer the
questions i put to Mark. How can we implement core components today, for
UBL 1.0 (or even UBL 1.1)? where is it we have not applied CCTS semantic
naming rules correctly?
my point to Mark is that this is not going
anywhere if no-one can say what UBL needs to do to "work
together with TBG17 to agree, prove, implement and pass on to the CCTS
development team the clarifications which are essential to ensure that we can
build and use a common Core Component Library." personally, i
thought UBL had done (and was still doing) this - but obviously you don't
agree.
I am not sure what you mean by "'throw their candidate CCs
over the wall' and then do not participate in the spirit and the work of the
follow-up harmonisation" - isn't that what the overlapping members and
liaisons between UBL and TBG17 should be doing? Has there been any formal
feedback or follow up from TBG17 to UBL? as far as i know the work done
by TBG17 is still within the CEFACT environment for comment and has not been
published to a wider audience*. so i find to hard to know how we can
"be taking the TBG17 clariifications and their draft library into very
serious consideration for UBL. "
Am i missing something here? Does
anyone else have an opinion on this? Sue's comment about "giving
wider international standardisation a try" should really be to the whole
TC and not me personally (i hope).
* I am aware of some of the
TBG17 work through seeing an excellent presentation by Hisano Sugamata
when I was in China at an ebXML Asia meeting last month - but this was
presented as very much a first draft and was said to be still being debated
within TBG17.
Sue Probert wrote:
Hi
Tim
TBG17 is a collection of people exactly trying to 'do something about
this' and their number include several past and/or present UBL library SC
members who care passionately about working together, under the only
truly international business users forum that we have, to try and solve this
problem in a single, published unambiguous way. This will not
be trivial and it will not be easy.
I
humbly suggest that, in order to maximise all our world wide efforts to
achieve the holy grail of improved semantic interoperability, we work
together with TBG17 to agree, prove, implement and pass on to the CCTS
development team the clarifications which are essential to ensure that we
can build and use a common Core Component Library.
This TBG17 work is progressing well with a number of useful
clarifications already available togethre with a draft library which is
certainly proving its worth with several user communities with which I am
either working or familiar.
How about UBL giving wider international standardisation a try, Tim?
TBG17 cannot succeed while submitters simply finish their work, 'throw their
candidate CCs over the wall' and then do not participate in the spirit and
the work of the follow-up harmonisation. IMHO we should now be
taking the TBG17 clariifications and their draft library into very serious
consideration for UBL. BTW I do not believe that UBL will be
able to achieve its potential impact if it continues to plough a
separate CCTS furrow.
regards
Sue
so what can we do about it? where are
the CCs we should be basing this on? we stated up front that all
unqualified BIEs in UBL would be candidate core components and have
submitted them to TBG17 on that basis.
I accept that despite
numerous reviews and discussions we did not always agree on the use of
qualifiers or terms, but as we have no consistent examples or definitions in
the CCTS we are feeling our way as to how these should be used. pehaps
you can help us?
MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:
Tim,
* what do you mean by 'the library of
CCs'? - i am not aware there are any.
Exactly, thats the fundamental problem. Without
defining and basing all of your BIEs on CCs you are 1) non conformant with
CCTS and 2) unable to have the underlying structures that are key to any
harmonization and approval process.
* what do you mean by 'consistency in the use of qualifiers vs.
multi-worded object classes and property terms'? - i thought we had
introduced property term possessive nouns and nouns to try and deal with
this more formally than the CCTS itself.
First,
the property term possessive nouns and nouns are 1) not CCTS 2) confusing
to the model, and 3) were not implemented uniformly. Second, there
appear to be zero qualifiers used for the object classes - rather a host
of unqualified object classes have been defined for the
reusables.
Mark
Mark
R. Crawford
Senior
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS,
RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming
and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working
Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
LMI Government
Consulting
2000 Corporate
Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
703.917.7177 Phone
703.655.4810
Wireless
The opportunity to make a difference has
never been greater.
www.lmi.org
your comment is clear in that you
obviously see a disconnect but i am not sure how to deal with this
without tangible examples...
for example:
MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:
Tim,
the
comments appear pretty clear to me. You did not base the library
on CCs - hence the BIEs are a hodgepodge of objects with no real
relationships that are fully harmonizable. The library has no
consistency in the use of qualifiers vs multi worded object classes
and property terms hence the relationships are unclear at best.
Mark
You have made this statement before
but I have not seen examples of what you mean by this. Perhaps
you could explain where we have gone wrong and what we should be
doing using UBL1.1 BIEs? It is hard to correct something if we
don't know what we are aiming for.
MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:
One of the fundamental problems with the library
is the Lack of consistently applied object qualifiers. This makes
any harmonization extremely difficult if not impossible, and leads
to a questionable conformance to ccts. The use of property terms
and qualifiers is equally problematic in the way we have done it.
Until and unless we begin to base our Bies on CCs we will have a
disconnected inconsistant library that manifests itself in the
form of inconsistent schema.
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow -
LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet
Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and
Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working
Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics
Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA
22102-7805
(703) 917-7177 Fax (703)
917-7481
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity
is what you make of
it"
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160