Re: [ubl] Question from TBG17

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:

> 
>[MC] - In working to create the CEFACT Core
>Components library, We must give sound business case justifications for
>our positions and avoid justifications like "it is just that we call it
>address" because we think it is simpler.  That kind of thinking is
>wrongheaded and must be avoided.  TBG17 is working to build a very
>logical object class suite using the principles of UML and CCTS.  
>
>  
>
I think you are confusing ontology (what we call things), modeling 
languages (the UML), modeling (normalizing objects) and architectures 
(the CCTS).

> 
>[MC] - The
>attributes for each class must be logical, and must recognize the
>relationships to other classes.  If attributes are allowed to be added
>ad nauseum to a class, then the class becomes unmanageable and reuse is
>significantly degraded.  I would much rather see logical subclasses that
>are reusable than too many attributes. 

I agree entirely and this is exactly what UBL is trying to do.  We have been pioneering formal data modeling based on functional dependencies and normalization principles (adopted from the design of databases) as the basis for this.  

My comment about the Address structure was that in some cases pragmatism rules over theory.  But this does not detract from the value of using good design principles to start with.


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