Further, Tim, ref your,
> to be honest i think it would confuse
> everyone to try and redesign these. (01)
I totally agree. The [ontolog] effort is, hopefully, an attempt to to
fully represent CCT concepts (as part and partial of the ubl-ontology
development effort) in a semantically unambiguous way; to the extent
that machines, as well as humans, can use those concepts in the
future, in all sorts of ways, inclusive of making inferences (that
possibly being an important aspect of the semantic web of the future). (02)
Obviously, any candidate for improvement to the original design or
implementation, as discovered during our process of developing the
ontology, can be duly provided as feedback/recommendations to the
owner of the specification, which, in the case of CCT's, would be (a
relevant working group in) UN/CEFACT. (03)
In short, like yourself, we hope to clarify (both for people and for
machines), rather than to confuse. (04)
Regards. -ppy
-- (05)
Tim McGrath wrote Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:02:44 +0800:
> 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.
--- (06)
> CRAWFORD, Mark wrote Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:34:19 -0500:
>
>>Tim,
>>
>>Can I submit your model to CEFACT for refinement?
>>
>>Mark (07)
>>>-----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. (08)
>>>Peter Yim wrote Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:47:40 -0800:
>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>-- (09)
>>>>====
>>>>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]... (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)
|