RE: UML meta-modeling of UN/CEFACT Core Components

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Bruno,

Please cite exactly where in ccts a dictionary entry name is not
required for a BBIE.

Many thanks, 


Mark
Mark R. Crawford
Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components

 
LMI Government Consulting
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
703.917.7177 Phone
703.655.4810 Wireless
The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. 

www.lmi.org <http://www.lmi.org>  

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno TRAVERSON [mailto:bruno.traverson@edf.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:06 PM
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org; jon.bosak; CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: Bruno TRAVERSON
Subject: UML meta-modeling of UN/CEFACT Core Components

Hello,

I am currently working on UML meta-modeling of UN/CEFACT Core
Components.

I have looked at the valuable work done in your XML implementation of
UN/CEFACT Core Components.

I have noticed some differences between the UML specification done by
UN/CEFACT (version 2.01
- 15 November 2003) and your XML implementation - for instance, a Basic
BIE has no Dictionary Entry Name in the UN/CEFACT specification and a
DateType has a FormatText attribute that does not exist in your
implementation.

These differences may be due to the fact you are using a different
version of the specification or due to the manual transformation from an
UML specification to an XML implementation ;-)

UML meta-modeling may be a good solution to seamlessly translate the UML
specification into an XML specification.

Are you aware of other people working on that topic? I would be glad to
exchange viewpoints with them.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Bruno Traverson
EDF R&D