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-cc-review] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] UBL Result Paper of CC Implementation Verification]


<Quote>
The UBL use of 'Adjectives' is a simple extension on the 8 categorizers.
However, their use of '-' goes against the approach of 'semantic
standardization  done in a syntax-neutral fashion' ... it is the
beginning of a 'new syntax'.
</Quote>

Thanks Carl - would you be willing to elaborate on the above point?

Joe

Carl Mattocks wrote:
> 
> Agreed - the UBL comments echo our own discussions on ensuring the structures enable a '  semantically correct and meaningful information exchange package' .
> 
> UBL 1:
> The UBL use of 'Adjectives' is a simple extension on the 8 categorizers. However, their use of '-' goes against the approach of 'semantic standardization  done in a syntax-neutral fashion' ... it is the beginning of a 'new syntax'.
> 
> UBL 2.. nn:
> The UBL focus on (list, identifier) TYPE is a good reference.(but does not affect us)
> 
> UBL 8:
> The UBL test for semantic packages is very useful.
> 
> 
> 
> > Team,
> >
> > The forwarded e-mail comes from the UBL Library Content Subcommittee
> > (LCSC) - it's the results of their recent CCTS Implementation
> > Verification. Below I've included a summary of each of the issues, with
> > some comments.
> >
> > I'm also copying the Registry TC at the request of Monica.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 1:
> > ----------------------
> > Relates to our CCTS spec p.12 issue regarding whether "ResidenceAddress.
> > Details" is an ACC or an ABIE. We questioned the fact that "Residence"
> > (or potentially another qualifier) does not belong to one of the 8
> > context categories.
> >
> > UBL suggests that "Qualifiers of Object Class and Property Terms should
> > be divided into two, namely "Context Driver" and "Adjective" Qualifiers.
> > The "Context Driver" Qualifiers are values from one of the CCTS context
> > driver categories. The "Adjective" Qualifier is any other value that
> > qualifies the object class or property term noun.".
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > In the CCTS spec p.12 example, "Residence" would be considered an
> > "Adjective" Qualifier.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 2:
> > ----------------------
> > Addresses how a Data Type is defined. More specifically, gives the
> > following example:
> >
> > "For example, "Buyer_ Product. Type. Code" has a fixed length of 3
> > characters and the "Seller_ Product. Code" has a variable length with a
> > minimum of 2 characters and a maximum length of 5 characters. Is it now
> > necessary to define a separate "Data Type" for each of these two BBIEs?
> > What should the names of such Data Types be?"
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > According to the CCTS spec, it would be necessary to define separate
> > Data Types for each of these two BBIEs. Each Data Type would be based on
> > an "Amount. Type" CCT. The first Data Type would have a Content
> > Component Restriction with a Format Restriction of "Length", and a
> > Restriction Value of "3". The second Data Type would have a Content
> > Component Restriction with a Format Restriction of "Maximum Length", and
> > a Restriction Value of "5". These Data Types would be reusable for
> > multiple Core Components.
> >
> > Regarding naming: The UBL document offers 2 approaches - one is specific
> > to the BBIEs that are ultimately produced, the other more generic (ex:
> > "3Characters_Code. Type". The CCTS spec is silent on Data Type naming
> > conventions, and it is out of the scope of our CC Review work. Hopefully
> > a "best practice" document will emerge on this in the future.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 3:
> > ----------------------
> > Addresses the use of Data Type qualifiers: "It is nor very clear, how we
> > can use the Qualifiers of Data Types in the specific BCCs or BBIEs.".
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > To date, we've placed the Property Term Qualifier attribute on the BCC
> > rather than the Data Type, because the Property Term attribute is on the
> > BCC. However, I think there may be scenarios in which a Data Type may
> > require a qualifier. I'll be sending a note out about this very soon.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 4:
> > ----------------------
> > Addresses the difference between the "Code. Type" and "Identifier. Type"
> > CCTs.
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Does not affect us, as it is more of an issue of how the Core Components
> > methodology is applied.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 5:
> > ----------------------
> > Suggests adding new Supplementary Components to CCTs "Code. Type" and
> > "Identifier. Type".
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Does not affect us in the short term.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 6:
> > ----------------------
> > Suggests adding new Core Component Types.
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Does not affect us in the short term.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 7:
> > ----------------------
> > Suggests adding new Representation Terms to Table 8-3.
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Does not affect us in the short term.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 8:
> > ----------------------
> > Proposes the concepts of "Semantic Packages" and "List Containers"
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Does not affect us in the short term. List Containers are represented by
> > us as multiple Associations from an ACC/ABIE to another ACC/ABIE. For
> > the naming concepts (ex: "Items. List"), an implementation could require
> > the ".List" extension if the Cardinality of an ACC within another ACC
> > (or ABIE within another ABIE) is greater than 1.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 9:
> > ----------------------
> > Addresses the overlap between Data Types and Representation Terms (ex:
> > Data Type of "Text", Representation Term of "Text").
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > Note comments in UBL document:
> >
> > "None of this convoluted problems would exist if we simplifed the
> > meta-model.  The name of the BIEs gives the semantics to identify a
> > consistent, logical piece of information.  The concern about specific
> > physical characterics is confusing the real issues of defining semantic,
> > syntax-neutral, core components."
> >
> > I believe this echoes some of our sentiments.
> >
> > UBL Comment/Proposal 10:
> > -----------------------
> > Related to Comment/Proposal #1 - addresses the use of qualifiers for
> > Object Class Terms and Property Terms.
> >
> > MY COMMENTS:
> > None.
> >
> 
> carl
> Carl Mattocks
> CEO CHECKMi
> e-mail: CarlMattocks@checkmi.com
> *******************************************
> Business Agent Software that
> Secures Knowledge for Reputation:Protection
> *******************************************
> CHECKMi Compendium the shortcut to Valued & Trusted Knowledge
> *******************************************
> www.checkmi.com
> (usa)1-908-322-8715
> CarlCheckMi (I M)
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


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