[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling CoreComponent Types]
Tim, Can I submit your model to CEFACT for refinement? Mark-----Original Message----- From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:56 AM To: Peter Yim Cc: ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types] i would love to join but the time is bad for me. also, i should point out that UBL has no role in desgning these things (CCTs) - they are given to us by CEFACT. all i was trying to do was describe their spec as a UML model to get a feel for what the relationships were. I would be the first to say they could be better - but its not our problem. to be honest i think it would confuse everyone to try and redesign these. it is hard enough getting people to understand what they are now. Peter Yim wrote: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 tospecifically tacklethis 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 ahierarchy and beused with a single relation instead of having variousdedicated andunrelated relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as inthe currentcomponents. SUMO already has an extensive hierarchy ofunit 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 wouldsuggest that weoffer SUMO + MILO + Invoice as core components. I also agree that after people start trying to formalize terms (mymessage of1/16/04 suggests who might try which terms) and comeup to speed,that Tim's list would be a good next step. I've left off the UBL mailing list from the cc listuntil thegroup 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 MonicaMartin, BillMcCarthy, John Yunker, Farruhk Najmi, Marion Royal, Eduardo Gutentag, ... etc.) are actually either active orobserving onthis [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, asa team, getpast learning the ropes in SUO-KIF formalization. (okwith you,Adam?)5. would be wonderful if we can reach some concrete and actionable conclusions (in relatively short order)and providethat as feedback and recommendations to Tim/UBL.6. for other pertinent references, see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblRelease1_0Regards, 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.orgThe 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 therepresentation terms inthe UBL models.b. they have not always been synchronized with otherdeliverablesc. the provide a disjointed view of the overall UBL library.Over the past few weeks we had had variousdiscussions about howto 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 specificationand created amodel of the Core Component Types - both as a UML ClassDiagram and a UBLformat spreadsheet model. These are attached. Myobjective was tocreate structures that modelled the Dictionary EntryNames in thespecification.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.netTo unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed fromthe rosterof the OASIS TC), go tohttp://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
-- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]