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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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


Subject: Re: [ubl] Groups - UBL V2.0 Model Architecture (UBL V2.0 Model Architecture.doc) uploaded


Mark

Greetings

I eventually found a copy of the CCTS 2.1 (still rather elusive)
and looked up section 5 which after stating that BIEs should
be created before CC discovery reads:
"If there is not an Aggregate Core Component with a suitable definition and
structure, prepare a new Aggregate Core Component request for submission to
the
harmonization and approval process. Include the re-use of the Aggregate Core
Component as an Aggregate Business Information Entity, including the
definition
and name created according to the Naming Convention, and the Business
Context in
which it is used. (Go to next Aggregate Business Information Entity)"

(It is the same for ASBIEs/ASCCs and for BBIEs/BCCs)

So what appears to be 'CCTS compliance' is to involve TBG17 in the critical
path.
The problem would then be the time between TBG17 meetings and the number of
meetings required before UBL would get back a required CC.

I guess the interim strategy would be to create candidate CCs in the model
spreadsheets and base the UBL BIEs on those. Would this render UBL open
to allegations of non-CCTS-compliance?

Is there a better way to ensure a CCTS-compliant release or is UBL doomed
to produce a few 'non-compliant' or 'x-percent-compliant' releases before
having
a full set of CCs.

Again it looks like my previous subject of bewilderment:
If we create BIEs which we can't use until we get CCs to derive them from,
how can we start to build a working library in order to get the comparable
BIEs from a growing number of domains in order to provide the
necessary comparison with such BIEs in order to decide what should be the
CCs we base the BIEs in order to decide which CCs we should submit
if we have to wait for the results of an as yet impossible submission (no
publishable library therefore no core therefore no CCs to submit) from
TBG17 before we get the CCs we need so that we can publish the BIEs we
need so that we can be called CCTS compliant?

As a result of this, apparent (in my opinion) conundrum, I'd agree with the
proposal from the plenary as being the best possible way to proceed with
the best level of CCTS compliance we can get while still keeping to a
plan to deliver a working library and schemas within a realistic time period
for the business needs at hand. Doesn't this sound realistic and a best
effort
to be compliant without taking forever?

Sorry to labour it but this all continues to puzzle me.

Incidentally I eventually tracked down a CCTS 2.1 spec to Peter's site
(many thanks Peter/ontology group)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/reference/UBL-ebXML/CEFACT-CCTS-Version-2pt01.pdf

All the best

Steve

(PS - apologies that I'll not be able to read any response until Monday due
to
being away from email contact but I very much appreciate folk being willing
to help me with this - of course it helps readers too who might be
struggling
to understand all this as support for the CCTS / ISO 15000-5 grows)




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl] Groups - UBL V2.0 Model Architecture (UBL V2.0 Model
Architecture.doc) uploaded


Stephen,


> How does one base BIEs on CCs or candidate CCs if you need a
> harmonization and approval process with them to create the
> CCs? This seems an impossibility to me.
> Should we:
> 1. first create BIEs then use them to design CCs on which
> they can be based   or
> 2. first create the CCs then derive the BIEs from the CCs?

2.  You may want to look at Section 5 of CCTS which has some very nice flow
charts that explains all of this.


> Secondly, do the CCs ever need to be expressed as CCs in the schemas?

No - although Garret M. of Oracle is playing around with this concept.

> If not then we have to derive BIEs from them in the model
> only and not use XSD derivation to base BIEs on CCs in the schemas.

Correct

> If we do have CCs as CCs in the schemas, should we use XSD
> derivation to derive the BIEs from them?

No.  See immediately preceding comment.

mit freundlichen Gren,
Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



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