FYI ... (01)
I am forwarding this thread so that this (cctont-implementation) subteam
is cognizant of pertinent discussions that are ongoing. (02)
While it might almost sound "intimidating" to be caught in the middle of
the debate (to a newcomer, especially), this is actually nothing more
than healthy, heated arguments from a whole bunch of individuals, all
very passionate about their work, and the eventual common good. (03)
I still believe that, by reducing definitions to computable logic (which
is the approach we are taking), we will be able to remove a lot of the
ambiguity (and emotions) and make a meaningful contribution to resolving
some of the problems discussed (besides, eventually, allow machines to
do more of the work for us ... which was, actually, the ulterior motive). (04)
Regards. -ppy (05)
--- Begin Message ---
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
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@xxxxxxx
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
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@xxxxxxx 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
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@xxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxx
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
--- End Message ---
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:cctont-imp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/cctont-imp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/CCT-Representation/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (01)
|