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

["Chan, Sally M" <sally.m.chan@boeing.com>]

Perhaps we can give a technical comparison on CC UIDs with UDEF IDs and let Ron know our requirements so Ron can help us in the strategic and technical direction.

Regards,

Sally Chan
Associate Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
IS - Architecture & eBusiness
206-544-7488  <--- New


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill French [mailto:bfrench@contivo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:37 PM
To: 'tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au'
Cc: 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; Larry Lenhart
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Formulating a response to the UDEF discussions



Tim,

Hopefully I gave good answers! :-)

I spoke with Ron this afternoon, and he is willing to work with us (the UBL
TC) at both the strategic and technical level.

Strategic and technical feedback to the UDEF team is warranted and desired,
and Ron is looking forward to addressing the questions.

Ron's email address is:

ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com

Thanks,
Bill

--------------------------
William French
VP Product Mgmt
Contivo, Inc
(650) 426-4154
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: Bill French <bfrench@contivo.com>
CC: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>; Larry
Lenhart <llenhart@contivo.com>
Sent: Wed Dec 04 17:37:55 2002
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Formulating a response to the UDEF discussions

Thanks bill.  i was actually trying to get out a draft, i wasn't expecting
answers ;-)   still i appreciate your points and think the liaison
presentation is a good idea.  like most issues this appears to have
strategic as well as technical considerations and the UBL Liaison
subcommittee is a more suitable forum for the former.

With respect to the technical issues, i think we need to be clear what our
options are.  For example, does the UDEF ID give us any advantage over  our
own Unique IDs (or CC UIDs)? 

Also, I would still like to give some feedback to Ron in recognition of the
effort he and sally put into their presentation. Maybe i should rephrase my
response to separate the first two questions from the third.  What do you
think?

Bill French wrote:


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>

    


  


-- 
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>