[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types]

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ubl-lcsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:34:35 -0800
Message-id: <402B8EFB.3080302@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Everyone,    (01)

Given our charter, I would invite the [ontolog] community to:    (02)

1. review Tim's input (message below and the two attachments).    (03)

2. seek clarification (where appropriate), discuss & comment. Note 
that Tim McGrath (UBL-LCSC), Sue Probert (UN/CEFACT-TBG17), and a good 
number of pertinent players (like Monica Martin, Bill McCarthy, John 
Yunker, Farruhk Najmi, Marion Royal, Eduardo Gutentag, ... etc.) are 
actually either active or observing on this [ontolog-forum] list.    (04)

3. consider how "you" would (or "we" should) have tackled it, with an 
ontological engineering approach, giving the methodologies the ontolog 
community has been deliberating and working on.    (05)

4. consider tackling this as our first real formalization requirement 
in the UBL-Ontology project, once we, as a team, get past learning the 
ropes in SUO-KIF formalization. (ok with you, Adam?)    (06)

5. would be wonderful if we can reach some concrete and actionable 
conclusions (in relatively short order) and provide that as feedback 
and recommendations to Tim/UBL.    (07)

6. for other pertinent references, see: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblRelease1_0    (08)

--    (09)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Component Types
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:01:40 +0800
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ubl-lcsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (010)

The UBL Library has been built upon a set of data types/core component
types defined by the CEFACT CCTS v2.0 specification.    (011)

To date, we have relied upon hand crafted schemas to define these. 
This has resulted in a few problems...    (012)

a. the schemas have to be mapped to the representation terms in the 
UBL models.
b. they have not always been synchronized with other deliverables
c. the provide a disjointed view of the overall UBL library.    (013)

Over the past few weeks we had had various discussions about how to 
deal with this in a more controlled manner.    (014)

One of the options is to go back to our basic design approach and 
create models of these from which XSD code can be generated.  I know 
the Michael Dill has been keen to see this.    (015)

To this end I have dug into the CCTS specification and created a model
of the Core Component Types - both as a UML Class Diagram and a UBL
format spreadsheet model.  These are attached.  My objective was to
create structures that modelled the Dictionary Entry Names in the
specification.    (016)

I would be interested in other opinions on this strategy - 
particularly Michael and the TBG17 group.    (017)

PS this exercise exposed a few typos (i suspect) in the specification 
so few objects have slightly different names.    (018)

tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160    (019)

GIF image

Attachment: UBL-CoreComponentTypes-draft1.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>