Re: [ubl] Data (Core Component) Harmonization - Some ideas from another community - Review request

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Hi Andrew,

I take it it is OK to make a response to the list.

The interesting approach of trying to avoid reinvention of entities, components,
ontologies, etc is that the need changes from one of design to one of research
and deep domain-specific knowledge. As we all know though in UBL TC this
is the ideal everyone seeks but which is not always realised: domain experts are
hard to find when the work has to be mainly, dare I say it, voluntary. If the UK
wishes to emphasise recruitment of domain experts rather than system
designers then that would have to be sustained to a greater extent than we are
currently used to :-)  I tried to word it tactfully but couldn't do
better than that :-)
It would, needless to say, be very expensive (if it wasn't already) to
spend a lot
of time and hard costs on researching what is already implemented or
recruiting experts in what is already implemented. Typically though
the expertise
never seems to go far enough to meet this ideal and some reinvention becomes
more the rule than the exception. Getting a whole host of people together who
actually know in detail what existing systems use for business entities and
components without the need to invent is perhaps just a dream in my experience.
Usually there is a fair bit of guess-work alongside the gap analysis,
even though
that side of things might get downplayed. What therefore worries me about
standardising this is that the embarassing guess-work goes unacknowldged, or
worse, gets covered up and people's expertise exaggerated. A nice ideal though.

Best regards

Stephen D Green

2009/3/3 Andrew Schoka <AMSchoka@comcast.net>:
> Dear UBL TC, PSC and TSCers,
>
>
>
> ISO Technical Committee 204, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), recently
> published a Technical Report entitled “Intelligent transport systems —
> Systems architecture — Harmonization of ITS data concepts” as ISO TR25100.
> The scope of the TR is “the harmonization of data concepts that are being
> managed by data registries and data dictionaries such as those described in
> ISO 14817:2002, a domain-specific implementation of ISO 11179. The
> foundation data definition approach is ISO 15000-5, Core Component Technical
> Specification (CCTS). The TR compares and contrasts a number of approaches
> to data harmonization including that of UN/CEFACT TBG17 however, it makes a
> distinction between inventing core components from requirements and
> discerning core components from existing systems.
>
>
>
>  A key activity is the ongoing work being done by the UK Highways Agency and
> their supporting contractor, Mott MacDonald. I had a recent opportunity to
> interact with a principal investigator of that work and he is soliciting
> feedback regarding his fundamental approach to data harmonization and
> whether it should be extended to reflect more detailed formulations of how
> data elements from different projects can be related. That work would be
> reflected in an update to ISO TR25100. I have attached his seminal document
> of core component analysis and invite you to review it. I believe that some
> of the concepts presented in the paper could well offer benefits to how
> independent UML implementations could be harmonized amongst themselves as
> well as with the UN CEFACT Core Component Library.
>
>
>
> I welcome any opportunity to engage in a discussion of this paper with the
> idea of providing the author feedback as well as possibly applying it to
> UBL.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Andy Schoka
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>



-- 
Stephen D. Green

Document Engineering Services Ltd



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice