ontolog-admin
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-admin] Re: Fwd: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?

To: dodds@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-admin] forum" <ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:13:57 -0700
Message-id: <40F6D775.307@xxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

I am not aware of any member in the community being from OCLC (Online 
Computer Library Center, right?)    (02)

Would love to, if it is relevant ... we (ontolog) are focussed on just 
the "business" domain, though. (see our charter at: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HomePage#nid011    (03)

Regards,
PPY
--    (04)


Ed Dodds wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:50:33 -0400:    (05)

>Peter:
>
>Do you ever get cooperation from the folks at the research arm of OCLC.com ?
>
>Ed Dodds
>
>---- Original message ----
>  
>
>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:34:32 -0700
>>From: "Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
>>Subject: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?  
>>To: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx>
>>Cc: Schuldt Ron L <ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx>, Mike Rawlins 
>>    
>>
><mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ebxml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
>Mark.Palmer@xxxxxxxx, "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@xxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" 
><ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  
>
>>>... create semantic mappings from their representations to these.
>>>      
>>>
>>Right on, Joe!  ...
>>
>>We, at the ontolog-forum, have a project that is working on just 
>>that. We're going to be releasing some work for public review soon.
>>
>>For those who might be interested, our work-in-progress can be 
>>viewed at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation
>>
>>This is open work, therefore, everyone is welcomed. We are 
>>soliciting participation too, especially from individuals who 
>>have intimate knowledge in translating/mapping of our normative 
>>ontology into the various prevailing formats/representations 
>>identified in the project plan (see: 
>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation#nid0136)
>>
>>Regards,
>>PPY
>>--
>>
>>
>>Chiusano Joseph wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:46:34 -0400:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>"Schuldt, Ron L" wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:32:11 -0600:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I concur with Mike's assessment of the current situation with regard to
>>>>adoption of the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS)
>>>>version 2pt01. IMHO the most important content (as it relates to
>>>>interoperability) in the CCTS is contained in two tables, Table 8-1
>>>>"Approved Core Component Types" and Table 8-3 "Permissible
>>>>Representation Terms"
>>>>
>>>>These two tables specify and define the foundation keys to
>>>>interoperability. In other words, I don't care whether you are promoting
>>>>ebXML, Web Services, your favorite vendor solution or any other latest
>>>>hype, until the entire planet reaches consensus on the basic definitions
>>>>of basic core component building blocks, interoperability across
>>>>disparate applications will simply remain a dream.
>>>>
>>>>The fundamental core component building blocks include the following -
>>>>extracted from CCTS v 2.01 Tables 8-1 and 8-3.
>>>>
>>>>Amount
>>>>Binary Object (e.g., Graphic, Picture, Sound, Video)
>>>>Code
>>>>Date Time (also includes Date and Time as specialized forms of Date
>>>>Time)
>>>>Identifier
>>>>Indicator
>>>>Measure
>>>>Numeric (includes Value, Rate and Percent)
>>>>Quantity
>>>>Text (also includes Name as a specialized form of Text)
>>>>
>>>>All ebusiness related standards bodies should be reviewing these basic
>>>>building blocks and discussing the strengths and/or weaknesses and then
>>>>reaching consensus on a final set and then develop strategies for
>>>>migration of their current standards.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Or, create semantic mappings from their representations to these. :)
>>>
>>>Kind Regards,
>>>Joe Chiusano
>>>Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>>>Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Ron Schuldt
>>>>Senior Staff Systems Architect
>>>>Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>>>>11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
>>>>#F521 Mail Point DC5694
>>>>Littleton, CO 80127
>>>>303-977-1414
>>>>ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:51 AM
>>>>To: ebxml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>Subject: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?
>>>>
>>>>If we could consider UBL the source for the common element names, etc.,
>>>>then we're well beyond an F but not yet an A.  Their body of work isn't
>>>>nearly as rich as the existing EDI standards.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that we can't consider UBL as the single, common
>>>>source.  There are several families of XML business document standards
>>>>that
>>>>purport to be based on ebXML Core Components.  UN/CEFACT's approach,
>>>>while
>>>>not as mature as UBL, differs in a few areas.  While the OAG has stated
>>>>the
>>>>intent to support ebXML Core Components, their OAGIS represents yet a
>>>>different implementation.   And, there is the recently approved X12.7
>>>>from
>>>>ANSI ASC X12, which lays out yet another approach to XML.  And these are
>>>>
>>>>just a few of the more significant examples.  One of the work items of
>>>>the
>>>>eBSC Forum, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and
>>>>Technology (NIST), is to facilitate forging a consensus in this area.
>>>>
>>>>Given the current state of affairs, I think a lot of us that were
>>>>involved
>>>>in the original ebXML effort wish very much that it had taken on and
>>>>completed this work item.
>>>>
>>>>If we consider the big picture, that is, not just UBL but all of these
>>>>other efforts, my preliminary assessment right now would be a D or a
>>>>"Gentleman's" C.  I hope to see significant improvement, but I'm not
>>>>betting the farm on it.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>At 02:42 PM 7/15/2004 +0200, Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>In Mike Rawlin's article 'ebXML and Interoperability'(
>>>>>http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/ebXML3.html) he grades ebXML
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>on
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>various aspects of interoperability.
>>>>>One of the aspects was "Common Expression" defined as "Common set of
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>XML
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>element names, attributes and common usage of those attributes, common
>>>>>approach to document structure" - ebXML didn't address this at all. One
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>strategy
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>was to enable several existing XML approaches to interoperate rather
>>>>>choosing only one. It also tried to address a very broad scope, with
>>>>>applicability to technologies other than XML." which he gave a grade of
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>F.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>common
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>something
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>closer approaching an A?
>>>>>This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML,
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>being designed to be ebXML compatible. If this is a misapprehension on
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>my
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>part please point it out. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>The
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>manager:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
>>>>www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
>>>>Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>>>>www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940
>>>>
>>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>>>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:
>>>>
>>>><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
>>>>
>>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>>>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:
>>>><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: 
>><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>    (06)

_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontolog-admin] Re: Fwd: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?, Peter P. Yim <=