Re: [ubl-csc] [Fwd: [ubl-dev] UDEF applied to CCTS - a Proposal forAlignment]

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

I'm not sure much more effort should be expended on this at all in
an UBL forum.

On a recent occasion I was queried as to when would UBL finally include
UDEFs; the query was somewhat hostile and it obviously came from a UDEF
advocate. My answer was that UBL would certainly consider it when it
became part of CCTS. Surprisingly enough this was accepted as a very
legitimate answer. I propose that this become our stock answer and let
CCTS deal with this. We *don't* have to justify ourselves or CCTS. And indeed,
if CCTS ever adopts UDEF we'll have to consider it...

Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM wrote:
> The EIDX event described went off without a hitch Tuesday and
> served as a reasonable lead-in to my UBL status report immediately
> following.
> 
> Garret gave what appeared to me to be a fine overview of CCTS.
> Ron responded with a UDEF presentation from which I took away the
> following:
> 
>  - Both UDEF and CCTS are based on 11179
> 
>  - UDEF aligns very well with CCTS, and in fact can be considered
>    CCTS without the third name field (representation term)
> 
> Don't waste your time arguing with my summary -- I can't accept
> UDEF's taxonomy to begin with.  But if we do a repeat of this
> event, I'll ask you to do the CCTS presentation. :-)
> 
> Jon
> 
>    Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:13:26 -0500
>    From: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
>    Jon,
>    =20
>    UDEF - although an intelligent identifier in that you can derive =
>    semantic meaning from it - is really a much lower level construct than =
>    CCTS. UDEF, as really nothing more than a UID for registry contents, is =
>    really just like a dewey decimal library catalog system.  Yes you can =
>    decipher what the general concept of a particular artifact are  based on =
>    the UDEF identifier, but that identifier does not describe to you how =
>    the contents fit together to make a larger whole. CCTS, on the other =
>    hand, with its basis in 11179 and object approach, provides a building =
>    block construct with ever increasing levels of aggregation that fully =
>    identify associations. So it is really an apples and oranges comparison. =
>    =20
>    =20
>    At last weeks Intelligence Community Metadata WG, I made the case that =
>    1) CCTS is really an instantiation of ISO 11179 - just as OASIS =
>    standards are instantiations of W3C specifications and 2) the ebXML =
>    registry with its robust information model and associations capabilities =
>    coupled with CCTS and its modeling/storage/metadata/associations =
>    specifications comprise the semantic content management features of =
>    ebXML (See attached and feel free to share).  I would hope that EIDX is =
>    given the opportunity to appreciate the real differences between the low =
>    level UDEF construct and the much more robust CC methodology.
>    =20
>    =20
>    Mark=20
> 
>    ________________________________
> 
>    From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com]
>    Sent: Thu 2/12/2004 1:46 PM
>    To: ubl-csc@lists.oasis-open.org
>    Subject: Re: [ubl-csc] [Fwd: [ubl-dev] UDEF applied to CCTS - a Proposal =
>    for Alignment]
> 
>    There will be a session at next week's EIDX meeting in which=20
>    Garret Minakawa will give an overview of CC and then Ron Schuldt=20
>    will compare/contrast with UDEF.  Should be interesting.=20
> 
>    Jon=20
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-csc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD