RE: [ubl-lcsc] Formulating a response to the UDEF discussions

[Bill French <bfrench@contivo.com>]

Tim,

I've been involved with the UDEF effort.  A couple of points:

	- The UDEF effort is being driven through the Aerospace Industry
Association (AIA).  EIA is
  	  the Electronics Industry Alliance... different group.  It's an
important distinction
	  however, since UDEF adoption by the AIA will likely lead to
adoption by the US Government,
	  especially the military and defense sectors.  That said, the high
tech sector, EIDX, is
	  putting UDEF into it's cross-reference models.

	- The UDEF team has been cognizant of the Cefact CC work.  However,
further alignment
	  will be necessary (which they realize), and I know there are folks
who are interested
	  in making that happen who are actively involved with UDEF (me
included).

	- They do have a proposed governance model.  What I would propose is
that we ask Ron
	  Schuldt, who is the co-chair of the UDEF team, to present this
model to the liaison
	  team.  If that's acceptable, I can make those arrangements. 

regards,
Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:32 PM
> To: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Formulating a response to the UDEF discussions
> 
> 
> At yesterday's meeting I was tasked with drafting a response to Ron 
> Shuldt, the chair of the EIA Industry group follow the presentation 
> Sally gave on the application of UDEF to the work of UBL.  Here is my 
> first draft.  Please add your thoughts to this and send them 
> directly to 
> me.  I shall edit these into a final version for submission before 
> Tuesday 10th Dec.
> 
> "The UBL team acknowledge the value of the architectural 
> model described 
> by UDEF.  The idea of using a hierarchical assembly of 
> objects and their 
> propoerties which cna be identified by an independant coding system. 
>  This formalizes a vocabulary and promotes interoperability 
> by allowing 
> differing names/tags to refer to the same semantic component.
> 
> In summary the question that rose to the surface was that this 
> architecture is somewhat similar to that proposed by ebXML Core 
> Components with their naming convention and identification scheme 
> equivalent to the Core Component Technical Specification and 
> the CC UID. 
>  UDEF could  be described  as a type of Core Component Library.  
> 
> As UBL is committed to compliance with the ebXML Core Component 
> Technical Specification, this could create some issues for us.  For 
> example, if the UDEF Object Tree or Property Tree do not 
> align with the 
> Core Component Library then we would have potantially duplicate  UDEF 
> IDs or no equivalent UDEF ID at all.
> 
> We therefore have a few further questions we would like to put to the 
> UDEF team:
> 
> 1.  How do they see the alignment of the UDEF structures with that of 
> the CEFACT Core Component work?
> 2.  How do they see the ongoing governance of the UDEF 
> structures with 
> that of the CEFACT Core Component work?
> 3. What added value does the UDEF ID give other than that already 
> provided by the CC UID (ie they both appear to offer interoperability 
> mapping)?
> 
> We appreciate your advice on thse matters.  As you will 
> appreciate, our 
> concern is that we do not embark on parallel developments and thereby 
> create even greater fragmentation in this community.
> "
> 
> -- 
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>