[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types]
Hi Everyone, Given our charter, I would invite the [ontolog] community to: 1. review Tim's input (message below and the two attachments). 2. seek clarification (where appropriate), discuss & comment. Note that Tim McGrath (UBL-LCSC), Sue Probert (UN/CEFACT-TBG17), and a good number of pertinent players (like Monica Martin, Bill McCarthy, John Yunker, Farruhk Najmi, Marion Royal, Eduardo Gutentag, ... etc.) are actually either active or observing on this [ontolog-forum] list. 3. consider how "you" would (or "we" should) have tackled it, with an ontological engineering approach, giving the methodologies the ontolog community has been deliberating and working on. 4. consider tackling this as our first real formalization requirement in the UBL-Ontology project, once we, as a team, get past learning the ropes in SUO-KIF formalization. (ok with you, Adam?) 5. would be wonderful if we can reach some concrete and actionable conclusions (in relatively short order) and provide that as feedback and recommendations to Tim/UBL. 6. for other pertinent references, see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblRelease1_0 Regards, PPY -- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:01:40 +0800 From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> To: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org The UBL Library has been built upon a set of data types/core component types defined by the CEFACT CCTS v2.0 specification. To date, we have relied upon hand crafted schemas to define these. This has resulted in a few problems... a. the schemas have to be mapped to the representation terms in the UBL models. b. they have not always been synchronized with other deliverables c. the provide a disjointed view of the overall UBL library. Over the past few weeks we had had various discussions about how to deal with this in a more controlled manner. One of the options is to go back to our basic design approach and create models of these from which XSD code can be generated. I know the Michael Dill has been keen to see this. To this end I have dug into the CCTS specification and created a model of the Core Component Types - both as a UML Class Diagram and a UBL format spreadsheet model. These are attached. My objective was to create structures that modelled the Dictionary Entry Names in the specification. I would be interested in other opinions on this strategy - particularly Michael and the TBG17 group. PS this exercise exposed a few typos (i suspect) in the specification so few objects have slightly different names. -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
UBL-CoreComponentTypes-draft1.xls
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]