Thanks, Tim. (01)
> i would love to join but the time is bad for me. (02)
What would be an ok time (can you give us a couple of slots to pick from? (03)
> 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. (04)
Understood ... but you've got invaluable application experience that
we need to learn from. CCTs are the first (but necessary) step if we
want to deliver a UBL-ontology, right? We (members of [ontolog] who
are working on ubl-ontology) have got questions about the UBL library
content that we need you help on too. (05)
> 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. (06)
This is important ... we can (should) talk about that in real time,
when we have our session with you. (07)
Thanks & regards. -ppy
-- (08)
Tim McGrath wrote Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:56:10 +0800: (09)
> i would love to join but the time is bad for me.
>
> 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. (010)
> Peter Yim wrote:
>
>> > 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
>> -- (011)
>> ====
>> 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.
>
>>
>>
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|