RE: [ubl-comment] Calling for a free, open metadata registry

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Title: RE: [ubl-comment] Calling for a free, open metadata registry

Todd,

First and foremost the difference and the relationship between CCs and BIEs must be accounted for.  Neither on its own supports eBusiness.  Second, the metadata identified in section 7 of the CC spec is essential to ensure the ability to access, understand, and use/reuse the stored artifacts.

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:50 PM
> To: CRAWFORD, Mark
> Cc: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ubl-comment] Calling for a free, open metadata registry
>
>
> Thank you, Mark.
>
> What is the essence that is missed?  I agree, my proposal omits
> many things.  I would be very grateful to hear which omitted things
> (both within and outside the CCTS) are most essential.
>
> At 04:42 AM 4/2/02, you wrote:
>
> >Todd,
> >
> >Sorry, I can't agree.  Your proposal misses the essence of the core
> >components, and fails to adequately capture sufficient
> metadata to ensure
> >BIE's are usable.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Todd Boyle
> [<mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net>mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
> > >
> > > Please establish a free, Core Components registry service
> on the net.
> > >
> > > [ Provide programmatic and manual interfaces that allow any
> > > user to upload any elements they need, a free programmatic
> > > interface,  that a UID can be resolved into its meaning.  ]
> > >
> > > The table structure is just an eleven-column table,
> reflected in the
> > > initial library of core components, which has not changed
> since May
> > > 2001. (The Word doc or PDF doc.)
> > >
> > >     0  String    UID
> > >     1  String    DictionaryEntryName
> > >     2  String    CCTused
> > >     3  String    BasicOrAggregate
> > >     4  String    definition
> > >     5  String    remarks
> > >     6  String    ObjectClass
> > >     7  String    PropertyTerm
> > >     8  String    RepresentationTerm
> > >     9  String    BusinessTerms
> > >     10 String    CoreComponentChildren  (comma-delimited list)
> > >
> > > There is no need for ebXML Context, Constaints Language, or
> > > distinction  between a Core Component and Business Entity. [..]
>
> Actually, I regret the choice of words there.  Context and constraints
> language are well-designed and meet particular requirements
> but my basic
> point is that these mechanisms do not serve requirements of the
> individual or SME but rather, the requirements of Enterprise and their
> vendors.   Explicit support of context and constraints too
> easily allows
> disparate vocabularies to continue-- I don't see any
> sufficient impetus
> to converge vocabulary.
>
> Explicit support of context and constraints also, easily results in a
> political and economic dividing of territory among "standards
> organizations" who publish vocabularies for "domains".  I am
> seeing that
> mechanism already in my domain, which is accounting and the general
> ledger.  The D14 is the bureaucracy that will control my
> vocabulary but
> it's not democratic.  It is a top-down autocracy, its activities are
> not transparent, and I don't like their designs.
>
> Their decisions have real economic impacts. They favor one
> class of user over another.  That does not bode well for adoption.
>
> Rather than suggest intricate changes in governance of UN/CEFACT,
> I call on the community to design a technological platform that
> allows the interests of users to be quantitatively registered, in
> a systematic way, and to start this discussion, I proposed the
> open flat registry.
>
> We need direct voting democracy, not a hegemony by self-appointed,
> unelected representatives at the UN/CEFACT.  Core Components should
> reflect the interests of the human population of the planet,
> or at least,
> its actual weighting of computer users, instead of its largest
> corporations and their IT suppliers who can afford to travel to
> world capitals at frequent intervals, and the enormous mental effort
> and commitment to engage all the issues across domains.
>
> In consideration of the importance of large corporations and vendors,
> they may be accorded quantitative weights.  But those weights
> should be
> consciously decided, and their exercise should be transparent. I see
> great danger in neglectfully allowing control by the
> UN/CEFACT permanent
> working groups.
>
> These comments are not aimed at any particular individual or
> organization but what I see as inevitable, systematic phenomena
> in any centrally-controlled economic planning,
>
> Thank you for your patience,
>
> Todd Boyle CPA
>