[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types]
> One comment we could make for them right away > would be that amounts and units should be in a hierarchy and be > used with a single relation instead of having various dedicated > and unrelated relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in > the current components. ... Thanks, Adam. Tim, you got that (please consider this the first installment of a response from [ontolog] :-) )? Can you join us on 2004.03.04 when we will try to specifically tackle this matter during our regular phone conference? Cheers. -ppy -- ==== Adam Pease wrote Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:22:20 -0800: > Peter, > Thanks for clarifying. One comment we could make for them right away > would be that amounts and units should be in a hierarchy and be used > with a single relation instead of having various dedicated and unrelated > relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in the current components. > SUMO already has an extensive hierarchy of unit types, with full > semantic definitions for each. > > Adam ...[snip]... >>>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:01:29 -0800: >>>> >>>>> Peter, >>>>> This sounds like a good opportunity. I would suggest that we >>>>> offer SUMO + MILO + Invoice as core components. I also agree that >>>>> after people start trying to formalize terms (my message of 1/16/04 >>>>> suggests who might try which terms) and come up to speed, that >>>>> Tim's list would be a good next step. >>>>> I've left off the UBL mailing list from the cc list until the >>>>> group reaches consensus on this. >>>>> Adam >>>> >>>> --- >>>>> At 06:34 AM 2/12/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: >> mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]