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

["Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>]

That'd be fine with me Tim.  As far as I'm concerned version 2 offers reasonable value as-is.  It would benefit from a once-over by Arofan on his section, and by an overall twice-over where we give more concrete mapping from the recommendations to page/paragraph in the target document (CCTS 1.8).

 

There is one candidate topic I'd like to strategize with the rest of the team.  We spent a lot of effort figuring out the difference between names for model elements versus dictionary entry names.  The latter as we learned have to be "fully qualified" whereas the former constitute the "segments" of the full names.  Our initial confusion around this subject (failure to differentiate the two naming perspectives) caused us to attempt to apply fully qualified dictionary entry names to all the model elements (e.g. we tried to give a "class" a name that included "ObjectTerm.PropertyTerm.RepresentationTerm")... It was later that we realized that a "class" has only an "ObjectTerm" and that it's "properties" have "property terms" and that when one makes a dictionary entry for the property it should have "ObjectTerm.PropertyTerm" to distinguish the dictionary entry from others.

 

Should this realization manifest itself in our recommendation?  If so, I was thinking that I could draw another mapping picture building on the first.  This second one would show the ISO 11179 concepts (class, property) and the dictionary entry name components (object term, property term, representation term?, various qualifiers).  The diagram would relate these to one-another and to the Core Components model.

 

That is all.

 

Regards,

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 7:33 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

Bill

I would like to incorporate/extend this with the comments from LCSC - is it now mature enough? do you have any objections?

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