ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Actual version of the common core component paper
- From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
- To: "Stuhec, Gunther" <gunther.stuhec@sap.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:31:12 +0800
Title:
In reformulating my comments about this paper, i realise that my original
concerns were not addressed. Most of these still apply.
What makes this discussion confusing for me is that the document is in a
'raw' state of editing. I am slowing unravelling what it means but the structure,
narrative (or lack of), redundant headings and ambiguous examples don't help.
I hope someone is planning to do some serious editing of this paper to fix
the inconsistencies.
I still cannot see why Representation Term and Data Type are not synonyms.
Why do we need both of these. For example, if we allow 2 different refinements
of the secondary representation term, 'Day' where one is "monday" and the
other is "28" (day of month) then we reduce interoperability and don't gain
anything. These are two different semantic things and should be two separate
secondary representation terms. In the paper the authors themselves confuse
the two (4.1.2 and 4.1.5 are different definitions - i suspect there is a
gDay mixed up in there and trying to get out). So if one representation
(either primary or secondary) is one data type - why have two separate objects
for these things, when they will always be the same?
To summarise my problems with applying this paper to the 0.80 models, I attach
a copy of the CCTS diagram that describes Core Components and Data Types.
I use this to orientate myself around the concepts described in the paper.
Using the meta-model from the attached diagram, I think I am correct is assuming
that this paper...
a. describes the current CCTS Core Component type objects and proposes two
new ones (Rate and URI)
b. describes the current data types of CCTS Secondary Representation terms
objects and proposes several new ones (Day, Duration, Factor,Float,Int,Month,
MonthDay, Number, PosInt,Year, YearMonth)
c. proposes 'common' aggregate core components (Period and Recurrence)
My further questions are then:
With (a.) what is the rationale for these new CC types? For example, i
was not aware that the Library Content has not identified a need for URI.
Surely our proposals should be based on implementation experience? With
respect to "Rate", the CCTS explicitly says to use "Numeric" for rates where
the units are not included or are the same (i think this means things like
rate of exchange, where the units are described outside the component itself
as part of an aggregate) and "Quantity" for rates with counted co-efficients
(e.g. km per hour). Therefore, Rate is either a secondary representation
term for Numeric or Quantity. If we don't accept that Rate is a secondary
representation term then why don't we have Percent (or other secondary rep.
terms) as new CC types as well? Whilst we are talking of Percent - why is
it used in 3.8.4 to decribe 'ValueType'?
There is a similar issue with (b). It appears some of these have originated
from outside our Library - they look like DBMS or programming data types
to me. From our models I would have expected things like, Description and
Note (as secondary to Text), Size (secondary to Quantity or Measure), Weight
and Volume (secondary to Measure). However, we tend to use these terms as
Property Terms - so there isn't a major requirement to have them as secondary
Rep. Terms anyway.
With (c) the question is why do we want these separated from other Core Components/BIEs
in the Library. Surely, what makes a thing 'common' is how many times it
is re-used not whether we call it common. For example, what about "Temperature"
- it is re-used five times (like Period) in our library. Doesn't creating
a new class of 'common core components' just create a maintenance problem
with determine what is in it and what is not? [[NB By the way, when you
describe "Recurrence", i think you mean "Frequency" - the rate of occurrence
(or reccurrence). ]]
Tim McGrath wrote:
Gunther, etc al..
Firstly, congratulations on having a position paper that needs a lever-arch
file to hold it. you have raised the bar for us all :-)
However, I need some help with interpreting this document. I am trying
to apply it to the 0p80 draft spreadsheets and have encountered some difficulty
understanding what you mean by it all.
1. Am i correct in assuming that section 1 is clarification of the existing
Core Component Types from the CCTS?
2. Am i correct in assuming that section 2, Proposed Core Component Types,
are not to be used in 0p80 (as per NDR decision), but may be used for demonstration
and feedback into CCTS?
However, the biggest issue I have is trying to understand the relationship
between all these terms. I am afraid unless this paper presents its application
to the UBL library is a more consistent and coherent way, I dont see how we
can use it.
To give some examples...
a. In your examples using the UBL spreadsheet model you do not have a column
in the for "Core Component Type" instead you use the term "Data Type". The
CCTS says,
"A Data Type must be based on one of the Core Component Types, but may include
restrictions of the set of values of that Core Component Type’s Content Component
and/or Supplementary Component(s)." so these are not the same thing.
It seems to me that the example in 1.3.9 that has,
Qualifier of Data Type = "Currency"
Data Type = "Code. Type"
UBL Definition = "identifies the currency using a code. ISO 4217-3 is recommended"
- could be said to have a Core Component Type of "Code. Type" and a Data
Type of "ISO4217-3. Code. Type" or maybe "Currency. Code. Type".
How do we make the leap from Data Type to Core Component Type?
b. Some of the Schema examples seem to have more information (meta-data)
than the spreadsheet examples. For example, 3.1.7 (Example of secondary representaiton
terms) the term "Date" has Data type of "Date Time. Type" in the spreadsheet
and this magically appears as "DateType" in the Schema. Are you assuming
that the XSD complexTypes are taken from the Representation term? either
way this is really confusing, as i would expect the DateType in the schema
to reference the primary DateTimeType.
I am prepared to accept that this paper makes sense to someone, but to apply
it i need a simple chart that shows the meta-data needed in the UBL models
and what permissable values they can have. Can anyone help me out with this?
PS why does 1.3.4 have yet another interpretation of Code/Identifier when
we have already a position paper on this?
Stuhec, Gunther wrote:
Actual version of the common core component paper
Hello all,
I uploaded the actual version of the common
core component paper on our UBL webside. You'll find the paper here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/ubl-ndrsc/download.php/2316/draft-stuhec-ccc-11.doc
Dear LCSC-colleagues could you review
this paper and could you use the common core components for the reusable
types, please. If you'll find any mistakes or if you have some further comments,
send it to me please.
It is possible to hand in the recommended
CCTs RateType and URLType as well as the enhancements of IdentifierType and
CodeType to the CC Working Group as a part of the implementation verification
process?
Kind regards,
Gunther
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]