[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8
This is very encouraging news, and is what I've been arguing ever since I first understood that CCTs and RTs weren't the same thing. If ebTWG hears this from enough different comments, maybe we can get it changed! Tim McGrath wrote: > yes i agree that we gain nothing from separating the CCT from the RT - > just confusion. This is a proposal in our comments - one list (i > prefer the name RT), that if not unbounded is controlled. > > Its ironic that what was a suggestion in ebXML has now become > entrenched - lets hope its not too late to back out of it! > > Gregory, Arofan wrote: > >> Tim: >> >> >> >> >From what I've been able to determine from the CCTS, what they have >> proposed does not completely solve our problem. I think we'll need to >> take a closer look at this, and discuss. >> >> >> >> The more I look at this, the lesss useful a distinction between RT >> and CCT becomes - having both, with anything but a 1-to-1 >> correspondence, seems to undermine the usefulness of naming >> conventions as established. And not having a set of re-usable >> low-level "types" seems to destroy the primary benefit of reuse. >> >> >> >> In attempting to put together two lists: one of RTs and one of CCTs, >> with some alignment between them, I'm convincing myself that we need >> a single, unbounded list. Our modelling is getting in the way of >> reaching our objective, both for CC and for UBL. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Arofan >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Arofan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim McGrath [ mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au ] >> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:24 PM >> To: Burcham, Bill >> Cc: ' ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org '; >> ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8 >> >> 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: >> >>> 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 > > -- Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC