> One comment we could make for them right away
> would be that amounts and units should be in a hierarchy and be
> used with a single relation instead of having various dedicated
> and unrelated relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in
> the current components. ... (01)
Thanks, Adam. (02)
Tim, you got that (please consider this the first installment of a
response from [ontolog] :-) )?
Can you join us on 2004.03.04 when we will try to specifically tackle
this matter during our regular phone conference? (03)
Cheers. -ppy
-- (04)
====
Adam Pease wrote Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:22:20 -0800: (05)
> Peter,
> Thanks for clarifying. One comment we could make for them right away
> would be that amounts and units should be in a hierarchy and be used
> with a single relation instead of having various dedicated and unrelated
> relations like Amount and AmountCurrency, as in the current components.
> SUMO already has an extensive hierarchy of unit types, with full
> semantic definitions for each.
>
> Adam (06)
...[snip]... (07)
>>>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:01:29 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>> --- (08)
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> -- (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
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|