Peter,
This sounds like a good opportunity. I would suggest that we offer SUMO
+ MILO + Invoice as core components. I also agree that after people start
trying to formalize terms (my message of 1/16/04 suggests who might try
which terms) and come up to speed, that Tim's list would be a good next step.
I've left off the UBL mailing list from the cc list until the group
reaches consensus on this. (01)
Adam (02)
At 06:34 AM 2/12/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Given our charter, I would invite the [ontolog] community to:
>
>1. review Tim's input (message below and the two attachments).
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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?)
>
>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.
>
>6. for other pertinent references, see:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblRelease1_0
>
>Regards,
>PPY
>--
>
>-------- 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
>
>The UBL Library has been built upon a set of data types/core component
>types defined by the CEFACT CCTS v2.0 specification.
>
>To date, we have relied upon hand crafted schemas to define these. This
>has resulted in a few problems...
>
>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.
>
>Over the past few weeks we had had various discussions about how to deal
>with this in a more controlled manner.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>I would be interested in other opinions on this strategy - particularly
>Michael and the TBG17 group.
>
>PS this exercise exposed a few typos (i suspect) in the specification so
>few objects have slightly different names.
>
>--
>regards
>tim mcgrath
>phone: +618 93352228
>postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|