[ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

yes i agree that we gain nothing from separating the CCT from the RT - just
confusion.  This is a proposal in our comments - one list (i prefer the name
RT), that if not unbounded is controlled.

Its ironic that what was a suggestion in ebXML has now become entrenched
- lets hope its not too late to back out of it! 

Gregory, Arofan wrote:

99F57F955F3EEF4DABA7C88CFA7EB45A0656F4E9@C1plenaexm04.commerceone.com">

Tim:

 

>From what I've been able to determine from the CCTS, what they have proposed does not completely solve our problem. I think we'll need to take a closer look at this, and discuss.

 

The more I look at this, the lesss useful a distinction between RT and CCT becomes - having both, with anything but a 1-to-1 correspondence, seems to undermine the usefulness of naming conventions as established. And not having a set of re-usable low-level "types" seems to destroy the primary benefit of reuse.

 

In attempting to put together two lists: one of RTs and one of CCTs, with some alignment between them, I'm convincing myself that we need a single, unbounded list.  Our modelling is getting in the way of reaching our objective, both for CC and for UBL.

 

Cheers,

 

Arofan

 

Cheers,

 

Arofan

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:24 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

Bill

I am pulling together a fairly comprehensive summary of the NDR and LCSC comments.  

I have a comment on Arofan's RT/CCT proposal.  It appears that the newly acquired Content and Supplementary Components of the CCTS (table 8-2 on page 87) may be the way they intend to address the issue of things like price precision vs. amounts.  i.e. a syntax-independent yet solid physical representation of data.  Does anyone else see that, or have I missed something?


Burcham, Bill wrote:

Attached is version 2 of the NDRSC feedback document to Core Components Technical Specification 1.8.

 

This version has an updated CC meta-model (diagram) and includes Arofan's RT/CCT feedback (hope you don't mind Arofan -- I snarfed it off the portal).

 

Regards,

Bill

ccts-comments-ubl-0-2.zip

Content-Type:	application/octet-stream
Content-Encoding:	base64

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142