RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

["Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>]

First my apologies to all for being tardy in this response. I have been extermely busy the past couple weeks with Lockheed Martin meetings in Orlando.

 

In general, I concur in principle with most of the proposals being submitted by the joint NDRSC and LCSC team.

 

However, I disagree with proposal #6 to eliminate identifier. There are two fundamental differences between code and identifier. In addition to the differences already described in the two definitions, the following differences provide further deliniation. A code is used when the population of the set is relatively static - for example country code - since the list of countries on the globe is not changed very often. Similarly, the state code list is a relatively static list. Therefore, a code typically is obtained from a look-up table. In contrast, an identifier is used when the population set is continually growing or changing  - for example the unique serial tracking identifier assigned the next item off the assembly line or the unique identifier assigned to next person who requests a social security number. In other words, it is impractical to establish a code list look-up table for identifiers that are continually changing.

 

Ronald L. Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. #F521 MP DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:32 AM
To: tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
Cc: Burcham, Bill; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

Apart from covering Arofan's point (except by deleting it), here is my consolidated version of the CCTS comments.

Can I suggest that Bill, Lisa and I form the final editing team.

It may be best of all comments go to either the LCSC or NDR list (whichever you can send to).

PS
we need to redraw the CC class diagram - to cover all our proposals (once we have agreed, of course)..  Bill, can you do that?  also can i suggest we leave out the XML Schema side of the model for the CC folks.

Tim McGrath wrote:

3CC39E75.7090506@portcomm.com.au" type="cite">Bill

I am pulling together a fairly comprehensive summary of the NDR and LCSC comments.  

I have a comment on Arofan's RT/CCT proposal.  It appears that the newly acquired Content and Supplementary Components of the CCTS (table 8-2 on page 87) may be the way they intend to address the issue of things like price precision vs. amounts.  i.e. a syntax-independent yet solid physical representation of data.  Does anyone else see that, or have I missed something?


Burcham, Bill wrote:

40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07344DA7@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com" type="cite">

Attached is version 2 of the NDRSC feedback document to Core Components Technical Specification 1.8.

 

This version has an updated CC meta-model (diagram) and includes Arofan's RT/CCT feedback (hope you don't mind Arofan -- I snarfed it off the portal).

 

Regards,

Bill

ccts-comments-ubl-0-2.zip

Content-Type:	application/octet-stream
Content-Encoding:	base64

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142