OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [regrep] Core Components Riddle


Thanks so much David.
 
Additional opinions, including a "business benefit" level?
 
Joe
 
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 


From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:53 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep] Core Components Riddle

Joe,
 
No surprises here.  If you want to couple CCTS to actual
runtime validation and content processing then you
have to use technology such as CAM templates - and
the associated business noun definitions as XML
in registry - so that you now have direct linkage
between the model definitions and the runtime.
 
UBL have been finessing this by using W3C XSD
to carry the structure information from the CCTS model
with limited content semantics.
 
This only gets you so far before you hit insurmountable
issues relating to context and structure permutations.
Not to mention codelist processing and then
permutations based of codelist selections - eg if
countrycode="US" then require ZIPcode, else require
postalcode.
 
Then you have to use CAM templates to resolve 
and implement this.
 
Since CAM has been purpose built for delivering this
for CCTS all along - this is a bit of a non-surprise here.
 
DW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: [regrep] Core Components Riddle

Now that our V3.0 specs are in OASIS public review, I have a general question on Core Components please:
 
The basic question is: What precise value do Core Components bring for data exchanges?
 
More details:
 
Scenario #1:
 
- Suppose 2 trading partners are exchanging data.
 
- Also suppose that none of the Core Components that are used in the exchange are part of the TBG17 Core Component Library (this will be the variable for the next scenario).
- The sending trading partner decides to indicate in their XML document the various Core Component entities (CC's, BIEs, etc.) using a content model (set of elements/attributes) near each entity (where does not matter - but let's assume just below) that indicates what type of entity it is.
 
- The receiving trading partner processes the XML document, but does not process the entity information because all it "cares" about is the actual data, not the data model. What value does using Core Components bring here?
 
Scenario #2:
 
- Same as above, except that all of the Core Components that are used in the exchange are part of the TBG17 Core Component Library (and stored in the UN/CEFACT Core Component registry - assume it is in production), and are indicated as such using their registry identifiers.
- The receiving trading partner processes the XML document, but should they "care" about the entity information this time? What value does using Core Components bring here? Is it different than the value in Scenario #1?
 
A third question: Absent any data exchanges, what would motivate someone to "Core Component-enable" all of their data? (for example, creating a relational representation of the CCTS Core Component entity metadata, and populating the tables/fields with the metadata values + the original data).
 
Thanks,
Joe
 
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]