[Fwd: [regrep-cc-review] Core Components Issue: Representation of AggregateCore Components]

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Forwarding Duane's response to Serm's posting - please see my comments
below.

<Quote1>
It is important to note that Buyer.Address != Seller. Address.

The distinguishing factor between the two is the context of Role.  Role 
is only one of 8 context drivers.
</Quote1>

Yes!

<Quote2>
The registry can easily store the metadata for these and include the 
relationships.
</Quote2>

Yes!

<Quote3>
The relationships are:

1. Buyter.Addres and Seller.Address and both both "used" within "Order".
2. Both have the same physical structure (dependant on other contexts 
such a geo-political)
3. Both inherit from an ACC called "address"
4. Both may be represented in many forms as instance data (*EDI, XML
etc.)
</Quote3>

Yes - #3 is a great point - they "inherit from" an ACC called "Address".
That is, "BuyerAddress. Details" and "SellerAddress. Details" are
created from an ACC called "Address. Details" by:

(1) Classifying "Address. Details" according to node of the "Role"
classification schema
(2) Adding an Object Class Qualifier ("Buyer" or "Seller") to the (what
is now an) ABIE

My recent proposal was that the Object Class Qualifier be included in a
Slot that is associated with the Classification node, so that it is
automatically inserted as the Object Class Qualifier in the resultant
ABIE when the classification is done.

Thoughts?

Joe

---

• From: Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com>
• To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>
• Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:56:06 -0700

Serma:

It is important to note that Buyer.Address != Seller. Address.

The distinguishing factor between the two is the context of Role.  Role 
is only one of 8 context drivers.

The registry can easily store the metadata for these and include the 
relationships.  The relationships are:

1. Buyter.Addres and Seller.Address and both both "used" within "Order".
2. Both have the same physical structure (dependant on other contexts 
such a geo-political)
3. Both inherit from an ACC called "address"
4. Both may be represented in many forms as instance data (*EDI, XML etc.)

This is, of course, a high level and simplistic view of the MD and MDR.

Cheers

Duane

Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou wrote:

>I also agree with Fred. There will likely be no Buyer Address ACC but Order.
>Buyer Address. Address ASCC - Buyer Address being a property term. So as our
>old friend examples Penguine. Summer Address. Address and Penguine. Winter
>Address. Address ASCCs :).
>
>I think there is at least a strong reason to store all CCs and BIEs as
>separate entries with unique (U)UIDs for harmonization among industry
>standards. I am not sure though how the registry will store the model
>(meaning provide connection among ACC, ASCC, BCC, ABIE, ASBIE, and BIE). I
>think that the Dictionary entry name can do the job (if there is no
>truncation).
>
>My other two cents,
>Serm
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Fred Blommestein, van" <f.van.blommestein@berenschot.com>
>To: "UN/CEFACT Core Component WG" <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>
>Cc: <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; <kramer@ean-int.org>; <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:42 PM
>Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Core Components Issue: Representation of
>Aggregate Core Components
>
>
>Joe, Mark, Regenald,
>
>My personal opinion on this subject:
>
>1. 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.
>
>2. The UBL document Mark distributed states that the registry would not
>store "properties", but would store BCC's apart from ACC's and data types. A
>BCC is merely an association between an ACC and a data type, and has some
>attributes like Property Name and Cardinality. One BCC can never be the
>property of more than one ACC. Much like an ASCC, which is the association
>between two ACC's, again with attributes like Property Name and Cardinality.
>So BCC's and ASCC's are completely symmetrical. The registry should consider
>both as properties of an ACC (with their own (U)uid's of course).
>
>My two Eurocents.
>
>Fred
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
>Sent: Tue 8/5/2003 4:45 PM
>To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG
>Cc: chiusano_joseph@bah.com
>Subject: FW: [regrep-cc-review] Core Components Issue: Representation of
>Aggregate Core Components
>
>
>
>CCTS Team,
>
>See the discussion below.  We owe an answer to the OASIS Registry CC Subteam
>on this.
>
>Mark
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:37 AM
>To: CRAWFORD, Mark
>Cc: CCRev
>Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Core Components Issue: Representation of
>Aggregate Core Components
>
>
>Thanks Mark - Can you please forward to the UN/CEFACT Team?
>
>Joe
>
>"CRAWFORD, Mark" wrote:
>  
>
>>Joe,
>>
>>This seems a better question for the team responsible for the
>>    
>>
>specification.
>  
>
>>Mark
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:05 AM
>>>To: CAM
>>>Cc: CCRev
>>>Subject: [regrep-cc-review] Core Components Issue: Representation of
>>>Aggregate Core Components
>>>
>>>
>>>CAM TC,
>>>
>>>For those who don't know me, I chair the "Core Components Review"
>>>subcommittee in the OASIS/Registry TC. We are in the midst of
>>>implementing the UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification
>>>(CCTS) requirements in our registry architecture.
>>>
>>>We have a current issue that affects assembly of schemas from
>>>components
>>>that I would like to (on behalf of the subcommittee) run by you if I
>>>may. The bottom line issue is: If we derive an Aggregate Core
>>>Component
>>>(ACC) from another ("base") Aggregate Core Component, should
>>>the "base"
>>>and "derived" ACC each be a separate entity in the registry, with its
>>>own unique ID? Or should they be one entity with additional attributes
>>>added to it? If this isn't clear, the example below will clarify.
>>>
>>>Suppose we have an ACC called "Address. Details" - it
>>>contains the usual
>>>address information (street, city, etc.) We want to create
>>>several other
>>>"related" (derived) ACCs from this "base" ACC, and name them more
>>>specifically (i.e. with more semantic detail) - for example,
>>>"ResidenceAddress. Details", "OfficeAddress. Details", etc.
>>>
>>>Each of these "derived" ACCs would have the same properties
>>>and content
>>>as the "base" ACC - the only exception is their name.
>>>
>>>So the question is: If one wanted to assemble schemas using these
>>>derived ACCs, would it be more advantageous if they were
>>>represented as
>>>separate entities in the registry (i.e. separate from the "Address.
>>>Details" ACC) - thus with their own UUIDs? Or, would it be
>>>best to have
>>>a single "Address. Details" entity with each of its various "derived"
>>>names included as properties (these would be Slots according to the
>>>registry architecture).
>>>
>>>My viewpoint says it's best to represent them separately, so one could
>>>list the UUIDs for these entities in an "assembly template"
>>>(if that is
>>>the right term), and automatically "pick up" the right entity
>>>during the
>>>assembly process. The second approach would require some mechanism by
>>>which the proper Slot (name) could be identified in such a template.
>>>
>>>Please note also that with the first approach (separate entities), the
>>>"derived" ACCs would be associated with their "base" ACC
>>>through the use
>>>of registry associations.
>>>
>>>We appreciate your feedback very much. We want to ensure that our work
>>>takes into account all potential usage of the Registry down the road.
>>>
>>>Kind Regards,
>>>Joe Chiusano
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>-------------
>Dit e-mailbericht en enige bijlage is vertrouwelijk en
>uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Indien u niet
>de geadresseerde bent, mag u deze e-mail of enige bijlage niet
>kopieren of aan derden ter inzage geven of verspreiden.
>Indien u deze e-mail per vergissing heeft ontvangen
>verzoeken wij u de afzender ervan onmiddellijk op de hoogte te
>stellen per e-mail en de betreffende e-mail te vernietigen.
>
>This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and may
>contain legally privileged information. If you are not the
>intended recipient, please note that this e-mail or any
>attachment may not be copied or disclosed or distributed to
>others. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify
>the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message.
>--------------
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>  
>
>>---
>>You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-ccwg listserve.
>>To unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the
>>following subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-ccwg
>>If you do not receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request
>>please notify postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-ccwg listserve.
>To unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the
>following subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-ccwg 
>If you do not receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request 
>please notify postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.
>  
>

-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Web Services & ebXML Messaging / Registry Downloads
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
Phone:   +1 (604) 738-1051 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329 

---

begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard