[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?

To: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ebxml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mark.Palmer@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Mike Rawlins <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:32:35 -0700
Message-id: <40F6B1A3.7060005@xxxxxxxx>
 >... create semantic mappings from their representations to these.    (01)

Right on, Joe!  ...    (02)

We, at the ontolog-forum, have a project that is working on just 
that. We're going to be releasing some work for public review soon.    (03)

For those who might be interested, our work-in-progress can be 
viewed at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation    (04)

This is open work, therefore, everyone is welcomed. We are 
soliciting participation too, especially from individuals who 
have intimate knowledge in translating/mapping of our normative 
ontology into the various prevailing formats/representations 
identified in the project plan (see: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation#nid0136)    (05)

--    (06)

Chiusano Joseph wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:46:34 -0400:    (07)

> "Schuldt, Ron L" wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:32:11 -0600:
>>I concur with Mike's assessment of the current situation with regard to
>>adoption of the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS)
>>version 2pt01. IMHO the most important content (as it relates to
>>interoperability) in the CCTS is contained in two tables, Table 8-1
>>"Approved Core Component Types" and Table 8-3 "Permissible
>>Representation Terms"
>>These two tables specify and define the foundation keys to
>>interoperability. In other words, I don't care whether you are promoting
>>ebXML, Web Services, your favorite vendor solution or any other latest
>>hype, until the entire planet reaches consensus on the basic definitions
>>of basic core component building blocks, interoperability across
>>disparate applications will simply remain a dream.
>>The fundamental core component building blocks include the following -
>>extracted from CCTS v 2.01 Tables 8-1 and 8-3.
>>Binary Object (e.g., Graphic, Picture, Sound, Video)
>>Date Time (also includes Date and Time as specialized forms of Date
>>Numeric (includes Value, Rate and Percent)
>>Text (also includes Name as a specialized form of Text)
>>All ebusiness related standards bodies should be reviewing these basic
>>building blocks and discussing the strengths and/or weaknesses and then
>>reaching consensus on a final set and then develop strategies for
>>migration of their current standards.
> Or, create semantic mappings from their representations to these. :)
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>>Ron Schuldt
>>Senior Staff Systems Architect
>>Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>>11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
>>#F521 Mail Point DC5694
>>Littleton, CO 80127
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:51 AM
>>To: ebxml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?
>>If we could consider UBL the source for the common element names, etc.,
>>then we're well beyond an F but not yet an A.  Their body of work isn't
>>nearly as rich as the existing EDI standards.
>>The problem is that we can't consider UBL as the single, common
>>source.  There are several families of XML business document standards
>>purport to be based on ebXML Core Components.  UN/CEFACT's approach,
>>not as mature as UBL, differs in a few areas.  While the OAG has stated
>>intent to support ebXML Core Components, their OAGIS represents yet a
>>different implementation.   And, there is the recently approved X12.7
>>ANSI ASC X12, which lays out yet another approach to XML.  And these are
>>just a few of the more significant examples.  One of the work items of
>>eBSC Forum, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and
>>Technology (NIST), is to facilitate forging a consensus in this area.
>>Given the current state of affairs, I think a lot of us that were
>>in the original ebXML effort wish very much that it had taken on and
>>completed this work item.
>>If we consider the big picture, that is, not just UBL but all of these
>>other efforts, my preliminary assessment right now would be a D or a
>>"Gentleman's" C.  I hope to see significant improvement, but I'm not
>>betting the farm on it.
>>At 02:42 PM 7/15/2004 +0200, Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
>>>In Mike Rawlin's article 'ebXML and Interoperability'(
>>>http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/ebXML3.html) he grades ebXML
>>>various aspects of interoperability.
>>>One of the aspects was "Common Expression" defined as "Common set of
>>>element names, attributes and common usage of those attributes, common
>>>approach to document structure" - ebXML didn't address this at all. One
>>>the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's
>>>was to enable several existing XML approaches to interoperate rather
>>>choosing only one. It also tried to address a very broad scope, with
>>>applicability to technologies other than XML." which he gave a grade of
>>>If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the
>>>set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to
>>>closer approaching an A?
>>>This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML,
>>>being designed to be ebXML compatible. If this is a misapprehension on
>>>part please point it out. Thanks.
>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>>Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
>>Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:
>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:
>     (08)

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    (09)

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