[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Re: [ubl] about the relation with CCTS

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:53:45 -0700
Message-id: <415DB5C9.20205@xxxxxxxx>
FYI ...    (01)

This discussion is worth noting, especially for those who are working on 
CCTS/UBL related ontologies. Our friend from Japan probably isn't alone 
with the question (a fellow ontolog member asked almost exactly the same 
question not too long ago). Both Tim McGrath and Michael Dill provided 
really good responses.
--    (02)

Michael Dill wrote Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:49:03 +0200:    (03)

>Dear Shin,
>yes, you are right: there aren't any ACC, BCC and ASCC published by UBL or
>reused by UBL.
>The reason for it is a historic one: UBL started very early to do real work,
>whereas UN/CEFACT spent much time, let's say, in visions and processes and
>not so much in documents.
>Reading the statements of the last CEFACT Forum Meeting two weeks ago and
>the press release ( http://www.unece.org/cefact/) , it's clear that CEFACT
>is going straight forward to develop Core Component Libraries with ACC, BCC
>and ASCC. UBL has submitted it's BIEs to the responsible CEFACT TGB17. This
>group TBG17 is responsible for a Draft Core Component Library. We have round
>about 10-13 submissions like the UBL one, now.
>Thus, UBL will have CC Core Components, even if they are not published by
>Second, the CCs are virtually behind the BIE of the UBL data model. I agree
>that some of the columns of the UBL spreadsheets are not in line with CCTS
>dictionary entry name requirements, but the CC are currently on a virtual
>When I joined UBL, I've been told that this would become a close liason with
>CEFACT. Thus the (sorry: my, but hopefully not only mine) attempt was to
>bring UBL data models in line with the CCTS and through this with any CEFACT
>In these last 12 month UBL spreadsheets became extended by spreadsheets for
>Data Types and Core Components Types. These are almost or completely in line
>with CCTS.
>Back to your question: In my opinion UBL will use/reuse CC for further
>development as an underlying layer, because it is a logical MUST. Otherwise
>we will not be able to manage and administer an increasing number of BIE
>basing on the same CC. Then this cannot be just a virtual one, I think.
>Michael Dill
------    (04)

Tim McGrath wrote Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:22:52 +0800: I am not sure we 
would call it a simplification, but you are correct UBL only defines 
BIEs not CCs.    (05)

Core Components are abstract (syntax-independent) definitions that take 
physical form as BIEs.  So we can have a CC for Address that is 
expressed as a BIE called Address in UBL and a BIE called Location in 
another syntax or another vocabulary.  BIEs share the same basic meaning 
as their original Core Component but have been contextualized to be used 
in specific circumstances.    (06)

The problem with this approach is that UBL started before any Core 
Components had been defined by the ebXML Core Components group.  UBL 
assumed that behind each of our BIEs would be a CC of some kind.  But it 
was not our role to define these.    (07)

Unfortunately it has taken UN/CEFACT some time to re-organize its 
activities and only recently did the UN/CEFACT's TBG17 (the inheritors 
of the ebXML CC task) announce their first 21 draft CCs. We submitted 
our BIEs to TBG17 as "candidate core components" and are now working 
through the process of how we align our submission to be more TBG17 
friendly.    (08)

So the short answer is, UBL does not (and should not) define CCs - the 
world only needs one of these and the UN seems the best place to do this.
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western 
australia 6160    (09)

------    (010)

>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: s-takagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2004 11:09
>An: ubl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Betreff: [ubl] about the relation with CCTS
>Dear UBL-TC,
>Now, I'm trying to understand the relationship between UBL
>specification & UN/CEFACT CCTS.
>But, I have a question about the UBL specification.
>According to the concept of CCTS, there are two different concepts;
>CC and BIE. And there are four types of CCs; ACC, ASCC, BCC and CCT.
>And BIEs are developed based on these CCs under a particular
>Business Context.
>But in the UBL specification, I can't find any ACCs, ASCCs and BCCs.
>The BIEs seem to be derived from DTs or the other BIEs, without CCs.
>I think some simplifications of the concept of CCTS might have been
>adopted in the process of defining the UBL, but I'm not sure.
>So, could you tell me the reason why there is no ACCs, ASCCs, and
>BCCs in UBL specification?
>Best Regards,
>Shin Takagi
>Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.
>4-11-4, Omorikita, Ota-ku,
>Tokyo, 143-8545 Japan
>Tel:+81-3-3763-5403   Fax:+81-3-3763-0469
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
>OASIS TC), go to
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the 
>OASIS TC), go to 
>    (011)

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    (012)

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