OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ndrsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] New position papers on dates/times andcontainership

Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] New position papers on dates/times and containership


I have not yet gone through your comments in full detail, but I wanted to be sure you understand what this paper is in the UBL process:

(1) Since it hasn't yet been fully reviewed by NDR, it is still a first draft that reflects my views, and not necessarily those of the group (Eve made some comments, but others haven't yet, and we haven't discussed on a call.) No changes have been made to it in response to anyone's comments.

(2) Although at points it touches on the methodology, that is not the focus of the paper. What I want to emphasize is that this paper points out some requirements that are placed on the library content by recent decisions and discussions about the extension methodology and some other aspects of the library. It is not intended to imply that library content does not reflect the desired containership (although in some cases it does not), but merely to lay out the requirements from a technical perspective. How the methodology handles the meeting of these requirements is not really within the scope of NDR (despite comments I made here, which are really just suggestions) - what the resulting XML looks like is what NDR is all about, and these two things are obviously closely related.

My major concerns are that we create the right cross-process packages within the core, to support extension, and that the library as a whole lends itself to good XML processing. In general, depth of nesting is a good thing when processing XML - flatness tends to leave applications with too few hooks to get their teeth into. Whether containers are semantic constructs or not is not a big issue for me - it would not surprise me to find that all containers corresponded to aggregate BIEs - the question is making sure we have consistency from the perspective of the resulting XML.

The ebXML modelling approach - as with most UML-based modelling approaches - gives you no way to expres the content models that are XML's way of encoding business rules. Happily, I think the correct use of aggregate BIEs will result in something that approaches the expressive capabilities of XML as we wish it to be used, in light of our extension methodology. We need to be really careful that we get all of our ducks in a row on this one, however, since the dependencies are tricky, and the potential impact on the re-usability of our core library is tremendous.

I will go over your comments in greater detail, and make sure that they are included in the NDR discussion of the draft paper.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:28 AM
To: Eve L. Maler
Cc: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] New position papers on dates/times
and containership


I have made some comments on your draft paper.

You have identified some valuable features that our library content
methodology should be (and i think will) address.

In summary, i think library content shares your objectives but differs
in our approach to reaching it.

I hope that my comments explain the structured approach that is emerging
from our work so far.

NB i have copied the LC list with this as it obviously involves my team
as well.

Eve L. Maler wrote:

> Gunther and Arofan supplied these to me last week.  I've also just
> made them available on the port{al|hole}.  (Guys, notice that I've
> rationalized the filenames a bit from what I was given...)
> Also, you all should have seen my warning to the ubl-comment list that
> the links to the code lists paper were broken; they pointed to V04
> instead of V09.  The zip file was okay, though.  All is fixed now.
> Please review these papers and send comments to the list.
>     Eve

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