by all means. BTW it is not my model, it is CEFACTs (but thanks for sugggesting
it was). the diagram was an attempt to describe the model in a way that made
sense to me (and hopefully others). if it has errors i would welcome any
corrections as its purpose was to help us understand CCT structures not design
them.
CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
Tim,
Can I submit your model to CEFACT for refinement?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:56 AM
To: Peter Yim
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ubl-lcsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Modeling
Core Component Types]
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.
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
--
====
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.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
|