[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] UBL 2.0 submission to UN/CEFACT Core component Library
It looks good to me. I think that having a system constraint context driver is a way to argue for having a more generic and reusable approach than other Cefact documents. I think we will have to work with the definitions a bit especially on the ASBIE/ASCC. Regards Martin -----Original Message----- From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] Sent: den 7 februari 2007 10:55 To: Martin Forsberg Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ubl] UBL 2.0 submission to UN/CEFACT Core component Library thanks for the offer. What was your opinion on the draft I sent? Martin Forsberg wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I hope to be able to help you with this work Tim. > > I think we will encounter a couple of typical situations in this > exercise. > 1. We have a new CC and BIE that doesn't exist in Cefact (like > Attachment) > 2. We have a CC and BIE that differs pretty much to an existing one in > Cefact (like Tax) 3. We have a CC and BIE with a good match (like > Address) > > Is it up to us to identify these situations or will the harmonization > machinery (TBG17) in Cefact sort it out? > > (Copied from TBG17 Submission Guideline-document: > Harmonization should ensure that a single semantic concept is captured > in one and only one Core Component structure. This may conflict with > different views on that concept in different contexts and it may > conflict with the emergence of new submissions. > > If it is agreed, that there is a need two have two or more Core > Component structures for the same semantic concept, then the CC > Library administration has to make sure that they refer to each other > in order to guarantee that any further development will be a > consistent one.) > > > /Martin Forsberg > SFTI, Sweden > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] > Sent: den 7 februari 2007 06:26 > To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [ubl] UBL 2.0 submission to UN/CEFACT Core component Library > > Now that UBL 2.0 is finalized we plan to submit the UBL 2.0 Business > Information Entities to UN/CEFACT as part of our contribution to their > Core Component library. > > This involves transcribing the UBL library onto the spreadsheeets > submission forms required by the TBG17 group within UN/CEFACT. > > Before we go too far down this path I would like to get a review of > the submission by the UBL TC. This is because the submission requires > some interpretation of our library into CEFACT forms. For example, I > propose that we submit our BIEs as both candidate BIE and candidate > Core Components. To better understand the issues I have prepared a > draft of the submission using only the UBL 2.0 "Address". (attached) > > In this form you will note that for Candidate BIEs: > a. I have made the context of "System Constraint" to have the value > of "XML" - in that we are only proposing XML representations of these > objects. > b. BBIEs with qualified Property Terms (such as AdditionalStreetName) > are derived from the unqualified Basic Core Component (such as > "StreetName"). > > And for Candidate Core Components: > a. No qualifiers are needed. (so not all candidate BIEs are candidate > CCs) b. I have noted the mapping of our candidates to the current > CEFACT Core Component Identifiers (where one exists). > > I welcome comments and advice (as well as volunteers to help) with > this task. > > The current plan is to have this submitted before the next CEFACT > Forum meeting at the end of March. > > -- > regards > tim mcgrath > phone: +618 93352228 > postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 > web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath > > > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]