Re: [ubl-dev] UBL modeling question

2009/7/20 Tim McGrath <tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com>

Sorry, my use of variables let me down. I should have said...

/In UBL, qualification of names applies when the structure of the BIEs are the same but the context of use is specialized. So X_ B (meaning this is a qualification of B) would mean that if i opened up an X_ B it would have the same structure as an B.

If I added BIEs to B then i would not qualify the B. The name is then a semantic/ontological decision. It does not need to contain the term B at all.
/
Tim McGrath wrote:

if i understand you correctly then the answer would be..

In UBL, qualification of names applies when the structure of the BIEs are the same but the context of use is specialized. So X_ B (meaning this is a qualification of X) would mean that if i opened up an X_ B it would have the same structure as an X.

If I added BIEs to X then i would not qualify the X. The name is then a semantic/ontological decision. It does not need to contain the term X at all.

We have found this to be the simplest and most consistent way of implementing the CCTS rules.

So, in UBL we have Customer Party, this is not a qualification of Party - but an extension (as you say). It could have been called Customer, but we felt including the term Party was helpful as it indicated its major ingredients. Some other uses of Party, such as Freight Forwarder_ Party are exactly the same structure as Party, so they are qualifications.
Of course when the element names are created the distinction between qualification and other terms disappears. The difference is then that CustomerParty is a CustomerPartyType and FreightForwarderParty is a PartyType.

CCTS does not allow nesting of qualifiers, but that is OK because the idea of 'further qualification' does not really apply. Obviously you can qualify Customer Party as Buyer_ Customer Party (as we do in UBL). If you wanted to qualify (further) Freight Forwarder_ Party you would really be just creating another qualification of Party. Such as Destination Freight Forwarder_ Party.
The question to address is whether the object you are modeling is re-using an existing structure or creating something new. Or to put it another way, what 'type' do you want the object to have.

Stephen Green wrote:

Say I did want to add an existing ABIE 'A' to another existing one, 'B'.
Say I wanted to allow for the possibility that it be further extended
so I wrap it in another custom ABIE 'XB' 'container' (as is done with
qualified 'Party' ABIEs in UBL 2 which contain the generic Party
ABIE in such a way that they extend the Party with specific BIEs
like the various 'AssignedAccountID's). How, according to CCTS,
would I name this new container 'XB' ABIE? Would I simply qualify
the contained 'B' ABIE or is that wrong since I am not strictly speaking
merely qulifying the contained 'B' ABIE but am naming a container
ABIE which associates more than just the 'B' ABIE with the container?
What would I call the 'XB' container ABIE which contains ABIE 'B'?
Would I further qualify it ('YXB') to name the resulting ASBIE within
ABIE 'A'?

Sorry if the wording of this enquiry ends up being rather cryptic;
hopefully someone will understand what I'm asking. I think it is
very similar to the naming issues that must have been faced when
modelling the various uses of Party ABIE in the UBL documents.
---
Stephen D Green

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

ubl-dev message