[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types]
Tim, Can I submit your model to CEFACT for refinement? Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:56 AM > To: Peter Yim > Cc: ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling > Core Component Types] > > > i would love to join but the time is bad for me. > > also, i should point out that UBL has no role in desgning > these things > (CCTs) - they are given to us by CEFACT. all i was trying to do was > describe their spec as a UML model to get a feel for what the > relationships were. I would be the first to say they could > be better - > but its not our problem. to be honest i think it would confuse > everyone to try and redesign these. it is hard enough > getting people to > understand what they are now. > > > > Peter Yim wrote: > > > > One comment we could make for them right away > > > would be that amounts and units should be in a hierarchy and be > > > used with a single relation instead of having various dedicated > > > and unrelated relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in > > > the current components. ... > > > > Thanks, Adam. > > > > Tim, you got that (please consider this the first installment of a > > response from [ontolog] :-) )? > > Can you join us on 2004.03.04 when we will try to > specifically tackle > > this matter during our regular phone conference? > > > > Cheers. -ppy > > -- > > > > ==== > > Adam Pease wrote Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:22:20 -0800: > > > >> Peter, > >> Thanks for clarifying. One comment we could make for them right > >> away would be that amounts and units should be in a > hierarchy and be > >> used with a single relation instead of having various > dedicated and > >> unrelated relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in > the current > >> components. SUMO already has an extensive hierarchy of > unit types, > >> with full semantic definitions for each. > >> > >> Adam > > > > > > ...[snip]... > > > >>>>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:01:29 -0800: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Peter, > >>>>>> This sounds like a good opportunity. I would > suggest that we > >>>>>> offer SUMO + MILO + Invoice as core components. I also agree > >>>>>> that after people start trying to formalize terms (my > message of > >>>>>> 1/16/04 suggests who might try which terms) and come > up to speed, > >>>>>> that Tim's list would be a good next step. > >>>>>> I've left off the UBL mailing list from the cc list > until the > >>>>>> group reaches consensus on this. > >>>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --- > >>>> > > > > > >>>>>> At 06:34 AM 2/12/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Given our charter, I would invite the [ontolog] community to: > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 1. review Tim's input (message below and the two attachments). > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 2. seek clarification (where appropriate), discuss & comment. > >>>>>>> Note that Tim McGrath (UBL-LCSC), Sue Probert > (UN/CEFACT-TBG17), > >>>>>>> and a good number of pertinent players (like Monica > Martin, Bill > >>>>>>> McCarthy, John Yunker, Farruhk Najmi, Marion Royal, Eduardo > >>>>>>> Gutentag, ... etc.) are actually either active or > observing on > >>>>>>> this [ontolog-forum] list. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 3. consider how "you" would (or "we" should) have tackled it, > >>>>>>> with an ontological engineering approach, giving the > >>>>>>> methodologies the ontolog community has been deliberating and > >>>>>>> working on. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 4. consider tackling this as our first real formalization > >>>>>>> requirement in the UBL-Ontology project, once we, as > a team, get > >>>>>>> past learning the ropes in SUO-KIF formalization. (ok > with you, > >>>>>>> Adam?) > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 5. would be wonderful if we can reach some concrete and > >>>>>>> actionable conclusions (in relatively short order) > and provide > >>>>>>> that as feedback and recommendations to Tim/UBL. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> 6. for other pertinent references, see: > >>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblRelease1_0 > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> PPY > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>>>>>> Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types > >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:01:40 +0800 > >>>>>>> From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> > >>>>>>> To: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> The UBL Library has been built upon a set of data types/core > >>>>>>> component > >>>>>>> types defined by the CEFACT CCTS v2.0 specification. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> To date, we have relied upon hand crafted schemas to define > >>>>>>> these. This has resulted in a few problems... > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> a. the schemas have to be mapped to the > representation terms in > >>>>>>> the UBL models. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> b. they have not always been synchronized with other > deliverables > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> c. the provide a disjointed view of the overall UBL library. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Over the past few weeks we had had various > discussions about how > >>>>>>> to deal with this in a more controlled manner. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> One of the options is to go back to our basic design approach > >>>>>>> and create models of these from which XSD code can be > >>>>>>> generated. I know the Michael Dill has been keen to see this. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> To this end I have dug into the CCTS specification > and created a > >>>>>>> model > >>>>>>> of the Core Component Types - both as a UML Class > Diagram and a UBL > >>>>>>> format spreadsheet model. These are attached. My > objective was to > >>>>>>> create structures that modelled the Dictionary Entry > Names in the > >>>>>>> specification. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> I would be interested in other opinions on this strategy - > >>>>>>> particularly Michael and the TBG17 group. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> PS this exercise exposed a few typos (i suspect) in the > >>>>>>> specification so few objects have slightly different names. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>> tim mcgrath > >>>>>>> phone: +618 93352228 > >>>>>>> postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ > >>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ > >>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: > >>> mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net > >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster > > of the OASIS TC), go to > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]