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

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

Sorry, my understanding is that the draft ACCs were approved as Draft ACC.
1-cent

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stig Korsgaard [mailto:STK@Finansraadet.dk]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 16:17
An: Michael Dill; Tim McGrath; MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: RE: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs
(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))


Ok, here is my 2-cent opinion:
 
Mark is correct in pointing out the issues with the current UBL Library in
relation to applying CCTS and the missing CC´s.
 
Tim is correct that there is a cooperation with UBL and TBG17, and this
should work in the way that UBL uses CCTS to build its library, it uses
TBG17 SGP and submission form to submit to TBG17, and TBG17 gives back the
result which UBL implements. If not, well I agree with Sue, that then there
is not much point in the exercise.
 
Michael is not correct in that the first draft ACC´s has been TBG approved,
but they hopefully will by Washington. For SGP this is also true!
 
In summary:
Could the current UBL Library be better in relation to compliance with CCTS?
- Yes!
 
Will we soon have CC´s to work with? - Yes!
 
Will TBG17 respond to the UBL submission? - Yes?
 
Will UBL comply with the response and feedback? - That is left to be seen!
 
But one thing is for sure: There is no reason, no point, no resources and no
way that UBL should keep a separate track nor even begin to consider being a
full-time proprietary standards organisation in the area of data
definitions, maintenance, etc. There are more than enough of those.

Best Regards 

Stig Korsgaard 
M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager 
Tel:    +45 3370 1083 
Cell:   +45 2725 9083 
Mail:   stk@finansraadet.dk 

Danish Bankers Association 
Amaliegade 7 
DK-1256 Copenhagen K 
Tel:    3370 1000 
Fax:    3393 0260 
mail@finansraadet.dk 
www.finansraadet.dk 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
Sent: 1. juli 2004 14:24
To: 'Tim McGrath'; MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: AW: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs
(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))


ouch, ouch - 
I agree with Tim that it's quite difficult to find the proper view and way.
Sometimes I feel that CCTS was made by many geniuses and then it has been
handed over to normal people, which have to do the diligence work to fill
the gaps these geniuses left.
 
The CCs as of Bonn are TBG approved ones. Therefore more than a draft. But I
do not know whether this has to be considered as a UN Standard draft
already.
 
Hisano mentioned several times that he is mainly interested in semantic
interoperability, i.e. to use the same CCTS methodology. As far as I see
Mark mentions that UBL does not fully meet the CCTS methodology. He
explained this by describing at least two issues. This are issues where all
the other CCTS pilots I know have the same interpretation. [off record: Mark
is not the chief cook here. He just has the same position.]
 
Additionally the different CCTS based projects came up with a lot of
detailed questions where they feel that CCTS is unclear or maybe wrong. They
want to fill the gaps I've mentioned above. 
 
Considering the real need those guys expressed, we started a discussion
within the TBG and called the group ad hoc clarification. The current result
of these awful analyses can be found in the TBG17 Submission and Procedure
Document, which is an approved TBG document, I think. (Sue: is this
correct?) The discussions continue and I expect from the GEFEG Berlin hosted
meeting next week a further small step forward.
 
 
Michael
 
BTW: this English English is what I have to read several times in order to
understand it. My dear native speakers: PLEASE us international English;-).
You cannot expect that the rest of the World will be able to speak this fine
English today. Maybe the world can, when the major language is U.S.will be
Spanish, i.e. in 15 years from now.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2004 09:46
An: Sue Probert
Cc: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs
(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))


ouch!  i dont think anyone in UBL has a desire for a different furrow - we
just dont know what the proper one is.  

as the UBL liaison to CEFACT, perhaps you can answer the questions i put to
Mark.  How can we implement core components today, for UBL 1.0 (or even UBL
1.1)?  where is it we have not applied CCTS semantic naming rules correctly?

my point to Mark is that this is not going anywhere if  no-one can say what
UBL needs to do to "work together with TBG17 to agree, prove, implement and
pass on to the CCTS development team the clarifications which are essential
to ensure that we can build and use a common Core Component Library."
personally, i thought UBL had done (and was still doing) this - but
obviously you don't agree.

I am not sure what you mean by "'throw their candidate CCs over the wall'
and then do not participate in the spirit and the work of the follow-up
harmonisation" - isn't that what the overlapping members and liaisons
between UBL and TBG17 should be doing? Has there been any formal feedback or
follow up from TBG17 to UBL?  as far as i know the work done by TBG17 is
still within the CEFACT environment for comment and has not been published
to a wider audience*.  so i find to hard to know how we can "be taking the
TBG17 clariifications and their draft library into very serious
consideration for UBL. "

Am i missing something here? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
Sue's comment about "giving wider international standardisation a try"
should really be to the whole TC and not me personally (i hope).  

* I am aware of some of the TBG17 work through seeing an excellent
presentation by Hisano Sugamata when I was in China at an ebXML Asia meeting
last month - but this was presented as very much a first draft and was said
to be still being debated within TBG17.


Sue Probert wrote:


Hi Tim
 
TBG17 is a collection of people exactly trying to 'do something about this'
and their number include several past and/or present UBL library SC members
who care passionately about working together, under the only truly
international business users forum that we have, to try and solve this
problem in a single, published unambiguous way. This will not be trivial and
it will not be easy.
 
I humbly suggest that, in order to maximise all our world wide efforts to
achieve the holy grail of improved semantic interoperability, we work
together with TBG17 to agree, prove, implement and pass on to the CCTS
development team the clarifications which are essential to ensure that we
can build and use a common Core Component Library.
 
This TBG17 work is progressing well with a number of useful clarifications
already available togethre with a draft library which is certainly proving
its worth with several user communities with which I am either working or
familiar.
 
How about UBL giving wider international standardisation a try, Tim? TBG17
cannot succeed while submitters simply finish their work, 'throw their
candidate CCs over the wall' and then do not participate in the spirit and
the work of the follow-up harmonisation. IMHO we should now be taking the
TBG17 clariifications and their draft library into very serious
consideration for UBL. BTW I do not believe that UBL will be able to achieve
its potential impact if it continues to plough a separate CCTS furrow.
 
regards
 
Sue
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [ mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
<mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> ]
Sent: 01 July 2004 03:56
To: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org <mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> 
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> 
Subject: [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 <mailto: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

 
<file://C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Cmcrawfor%5CApplication%20Data%5CMi
crosoft%5CSignatures%5Cimage002.jpg>  
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. 

 <http://www.lmi.org/> www.lmi.org 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [ mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
<mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> ]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:47 AM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:57 PM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:mcrawford@lmi.org> 
http://www.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

  



-- 

regards

tim mcgrath

phone: +618 93352228  

postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>