ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling Core Compon

To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ubl-lcsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:56:10 +0800
Message-id: <403D8A7A.1060602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
i would love to join but the time is bad for me.    (01)

also, i should point out that UBL has no role in desgning these things 
(CCTs) - they are given to us by CEFACT.  all i was trying to do was 
describe their spec as a UML model to get a feel for what the 
relationships were.  I would be the first to say they could be better - 
but its not our problem.   to be honest i think it would confuse 
everyone to try and redesign these.  it is hard enough getting people to 
understand what they are now.    (02)



Peter Yim wrote:    (03)

> > 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. ...
>
> Thanks, Adam.
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers.  -ppy
> -- 
>
> ====
> Adam Pease wrote Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:22:20 -0800:
>
>> 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
>
>
> ...[snip]...
>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
>
>    (04)

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160    (05)




_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

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