AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

["Michael Dill" <dill2@gefeg.com>]

I'd like to add a further point to this pre-Copenhagen discussion: If we do not restrict the reuse of reusable aggregates (ABIE) - where appropriate - we will have huge documents, and users will have the same problems they already have with the application of standards like RNet or oagi.

 

It's very difficult for an user to figure out which of the 500000 to 700000 document elements are the right ones to map his 30-40 elements to. In other words, the CCTS methodology prevents to build data church yards.

 

Imho this is one of the big advantages of CCTS to combine redundancy free data definitions and structures with context related restrictions.

 

This requires underlying ABIE or CC, what we do not yet have everywhere.

 

I would not consider this as a problem, as long as UBL just wants do develop a simple data set just for simple documents. But what I see is, that people come up with complex documents and complicated requirements. This will undoubtfully lead to the extension of existing ABIE in reusable and to an useless extension of ALL documents which use the aggregates of the reusable library - except we restrict the inherited extensions where they are not to be used!

 

This also asks for a change log in the ss (I've just learned from Anne's issue list that this is an abbreviation) referring to not yet fully existing formalized DMRs. Thus we can maintain data and DMRs in a master and do not have to have them in the schemas.

 

I seem to remember that somebody asked whether UBL wants to become a standard organization or so. Maybe the above mentioned questions are exactly among those a standard organisation has to deal with.

 

Best regards,

Michael Dill

 

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2004 04:56
An: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org  
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

so what can we do about it? where are the CCs we should be basing this on?  we stated up front that all unqualified BIEs in UBL would be candidate core components and have submitted them to TBG17 on that basis.  

I accept that despite numerous reviews and discussions we did not always agree on the use of qualifiers or terms, but as we have no consistent examples or definitions in the CCTS we are feeling our way as to how these should be used.  pehaps you can help us?


MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:

Tim,

 

* what do you mean by 'the library of CCs'?  - i am not aware there are any.  

 

Exactly, thats the fundamental problem.  Without defining and basing all of your BIEs on CCs you are 1) non conformant with CCTS and 2) unable to have the underlying structures that are key to any harmonization and approval process.

 

* what do you mean by 'consistency in the use of qualifiers vs. multi-worded object classes and property terms'?  - i thought we had introduced property term possessive nouns and nouns to try and deal with this more formally than the CCTS itself.

First, the property term possessive nouns and nouns are 1) not CCTS 2) confusing to the model, and 3) were not implemented uniformly.  Second, there appear to be zero qualifiers used for the object classes - rather a host of unqualified object classes have been defined for the reusables. 

 

Mark
Mark R. Crawford

Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components

 

LMI Government Consulting
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
703.917.7177 Phone
703.655.4810 Wireless
The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater.

www.lmi.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:47 AM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's)

your comment is clear in that you obviously see a disconnect but i am not sure how to deal with this without tangible examples...

for example:




MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:

Tim,

 

the comments appear pretty clear to me.  You did not base the library on CCs - hence the BIEs are a hodgepodge of objects with no real relationships that are fully harmonizable.  The library has no consistency in the use of qualifiers vs multi worded object classes and property terms hence the relationships are unclear at best. 

 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:57 PM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's)

You have made this statement before but I have not seen examples of what you mean by this.  Perhaps you could explain where we have gone wrong and what we should be doing using UBL1.1 BIEs?  It is hard to correct something if we don't know what we are aiming for.

MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:

One of the fundamental problems with the library is the Lack of consistently applied object qualifiers. This makes any harmonization extremely difficult if not impossible, and leads to a questionable conformance to ccts. The use of property terms and qualifiers is equally problematic in the way we have done it. Until and unless we begin to base our Bies on CCs we will have a disconnected inconsistant library that manifests itself in the form of inconsistent schema.
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7481
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160