RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction

["Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>]

If the ebXML CCTS building block registry is based on a taxonomy
(ontology) and associated OWL/RDF overlay rather than a rows and columns
matrix (the current CCTS approach), then the desired inheritance and
extension capability becomes possible provided the extension process is
well understood and properly managed by an appropriate global
non-profit.

Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:54 AM
To: Schuldt, Ron L
Cc: Bryan Rasmussen; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org;
ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org; Decapua, David P
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction


Here is a specific example of what I was referring to in my posting
below:

I expressed the following to the CCTS team in an "offline" e-mail,
regarding the fact that CCTS does not specify a facility for creation of
"abstract" ACCs (like abstract classes), and the derivation of other
ACCs from those abstract ACCs. My example was regarding Address:

<Example>
This is an example of something that we may feel is necessary in our
registry architecture - for example, our "Address. Details"
scenario in which "Address. Details" may be considered an "abstract"
 (base) ACC, and "ResidenceAddress. Details" may be considered a "real"
(derived) ACC that can be re-used in multiple ACCs as needed.
</Example>

Here is the response I received from the CCTS Team:

<Response>
The CCTS does not support derivations of one ACC from another, like the
derivation of a real ACC from an abstract ACC. The Address example is
not that fortunate as such "derivation" can and probably will be solved
by means of ASCC's. Another example is a "Buyer Party" that may be
derived from a more generic "Party". Though it is tempting to define a
"Buyer Party" as a special case of "Party", this can only be done
"off-line", in the discovery and harmonisation process. The registry
should not take such derivation into account. Suppose later one adds
some property to the "Buyer Party" and not to the "Party", or deletes a
property. That would be allowed according to CCTS and consequently
should be supported by the registry.
</Response>

I believe that this scenario is not covered by ASCCs, as the CCTS Team
indicated, and requires functionality beyond that described in the CCTS.

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano

"Schuldt, Ron L" wrote:
> 
> Bryan/Joe/et al.
> 
> I concur with Joe's assessment that the current CCTS does not
adequately
> address the need for core component extension. The need exists due to
> the simple fact that there is no such thing as a one size fits all
> purchase order or invoice or .. or .. etc. Too many industry-unique
data
> requirements preclude one size fits all schema for most ebusiness
> transactions. Extensibility is essential at the core component
building
> block level.
> 
> If you agree with the requirement stated above, then a centralized
> online source and global registry for finding core component building
> blocks with the associated capability to extend those building blocks
> (as necessary) in a controlled fashion is an essential requirement. A
> proposed approach to this essential requirement is highlighted in the
> concept of operation (Figure 7) in the ebXML Forum article at
> http://www.ebxmlforum.org/articles/ebFor_20040306.html
> 
> Ron Schuldt
> Senior Staff Systems Architect
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
> Littleton, CO 80127
> 303-977-1414
> ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 7:10 AM
> To: Bryan Rasmussen
> Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by
restriction
> 
> Bryan,
> 
> Commenting solely on the Core Components Technical Specification, not
on
> UBL's implementation:
> 
> According to my highly detailed analysis of the CCTS (current version
> and several versions past) has - in my opinion - shown that the Core
> Components methodology, as documented in the CCTS, has not given
> adequate consideration to the notions of inheritance and extension. I
> have communicated this to the UN/CEFACT CCTS team in the past.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz Allen Hamilton
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> 
> Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The core components work basically via derivation by restriction,
I've
> > noticed a little grousing about that here and there, will future
> usages of
> > core components allow derivation via other methodologies?
> >
> > It seems to me that this has affected the derivation methodologies
of
> UBL
> > reference:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-cmsc/200401/msg00001.html,
> > where it looks to me that what one has to do if one wants to add
> elements is
> > first off derive by restriction, quoting from the referenced url
> "first
> > derive by restriction, eliminating the element referring to
> ubl:PartyType
> > from the myns:MyOrderType, then derive by extension adding an
element
> that
> > refers to myns:MyPartyType.
> > "
> 
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz Allen Hamilton

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton