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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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


Subject: RE: [ubl] PLENARY REPORT FROM THE UBL TC MEETING IN HANGZHOU 9 MAY - 13 MAY 2005


Tim Wrote:
 
>I dont want to get anyone too excited until we see the first prototype.

>For now lets just say we are trying to rationalize the models against
the 
>schemas and also ensure the models are extendable and managable into
the future.

>The idea we are looking is three levels:
>* things that are only of interest to one document type
>* things that are only of interest in one context of use
>* things that are of interest to everybody.

Two points here.  First, level one is what we intended for internal
schema modules.  Levels 2 and three are what we intended for the CBC and
CAC schema modules.
 
 
Second, regardless of which of the three levels you are working in, CCTS
requires that  ANY BIE is based on a corresponding CC.  Specifically:
 

" [B1]    A Business Information Entity shall be a Basic Business
Information Entity, an Association Business Information Entity or an
Aggregate Business Information Entity

[B2]     A Business Information Entity shall be defined by one or more
Business Contexts

[B3]     A Basic Business Information Entity shall be based on a Basic
Core Component

[B4]     An Association Business Information Entity shall be based on an
Association Core Component

[B5]     An Aggregate Business Information Entity shall be based on an
Aggregate Core Component"

There is no equivocation in CCTS.  In the past we have claimed
conformance to CCTS, despite not adhering to these rules - in large part
because we were waiting for CEFACT to produce their library of CC's.  In
the future, we must 1) define our own Core Components, or 2) reuse
CEFACT Core Components, or else 3) drop all claims of CCTS conformance.
Option 3 is unacceptable and will result in significant loss of support
for UBL.  It seems to me the only viable choice is a combination of 1
and 2.  Map all of our BIEs to the TBG17 CC library, and create
candidate CCs where one does not exist.  As a matter of fact, if we want
our BIE submission to be considered at all by TBG17, we must do exactly
that.  Otherwise it will most certainly be rejected as non-conformant
with CCTS and thus unprocessable in the TBG17 harmonization process.

 

Mark

 



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