[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Models for generating CCT and Data Typ

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:12:32 -0800
Message-id: <403E5330.1060009@xxxxxxxx>
fyi ...    (01)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Models for generating CCT and Data Type schemas
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 01:46:09 +0800
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: dill2@xxxxxxxxx
CC: ubl-lcsc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (02)

  From what i could gather at today's meeting, it was decided not to 
use the current CCT.xsd and other Rep. Term and Data Type schemas.    (03)

Instead we would create new schemas based on your understanding of the 
CCTS.    (04)

A few weeks ago i sent this out for comment.  I think it follows your
earlier idea of a spreadsheet/model for data types.  However, i have
crafted these so using existing naming rules we get the correct CCTS
Dictionary Entry Names (as near as our spreadsheet formulas allow anyway).    (05)

I wonder how we would go if we took these CCT models and loaded them
into EDIFIX with the assumption that they were treated as ABIEs, BBIEs
and ASBIEs (as in the spreadsheet) instead of  types and supplementary
components?  In other words, treat this spreadsheet model just like 
any other UBL document model.  The schemas we could generate would 
follow the NDRs for ABIEs, BBIEs and ASBIEs - but that is a good 
thing.  After all these things are really aggregates, components and 
assocations.  As was discused we will end up with more elements and no 
attributes!  But i suspect that is not a bad thing either.    (06)

The more i think about this there seems no reasons to have different 
XSD representations for CCT, DTS and their supplementary components 
than for BIEs.  What is more we then have a consistency between the 
models and the schemas - which i know you have argued for.    (07)

I think if we can work this out over the next weeks or so it will be
acceptable in the 1.0 release.  But we will need to commit to a plan
tomorrow to get NDRs approval  for this.  Let me know if this seems
practical and achievable or if you need more information.    (08)

tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160    (09)

Attachment: UBL-CoreComponentTypes-draft1.xls
Description: application/msexcell

GIF image

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

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