ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8
- From: "Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>
- To: "'tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au'" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:17:45 -0500
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
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
|
|
application/octet-stream |
|
BASE64 | |
--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC