[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?
Danny I'm delighted to see someone discussing CCTS interoperability. I personally (as did Mark) just did a stint on a committee in CEFACT to discuss CCTS conformance (on hold for a little while). Last time I heard, there isn't a conformance clause as yet for CCTS - just a vague-ish idea that conformance means complying with all normative statements in the spec. It would be nice to eventually see more detail 9such as a list of testable assertions which when taken together or in discrete modules of sets of the assertions amount to a detailed definition of CCTS conformance. The last time we put something together on this it was a concensus that this work would have to go on for each part of CCTS within the group that works on that part but there was as yet no formal agreement on whether this was acceptable or whether it would happen. Clearly it could be a great deal of work for someone. In the meantime, I'd echo that CCTS (at least in the version used in UBL) requires nothing specific to XML as such and only requires derivation from CCT to datatype to take place in the modeling so no schema needs to be linked to the other schemas which would cater for the CCTs. (see my other posting) I'd make a quick comment about SAP involvement in CCTS just to say that from what I remember SAP employees were not by any means noticeable as over-representative in the discussions that went on with regard to CCTS. They were involved a lot but so were many others - even a few people like myself who were self-employed or public sector (I was a bit of both as an OASIS individual member). This is just to stress that the history doesn't show over involvement in my view from any one company or sector or even country (though quite a few from USA were always involved of course). That was cool. Later there was more leadership coming from SAP of course but by then, as far as I remember, most of the decisions about how to represent CCTS in XML were already made (sometimes agreed all round, other times differing between UBL, OAGIS and ATG - then the main players I think). Regarding CEFACT, I'd say many of the discussions on how to put CCTS (CCTS having been written in CEFACT but by folk a good representative number of whom were also working in OASIS on UBL) into XML were mirrored or even conducted within UBL TC, as far as I recollect. So it has been a well spread out effort. This was fed back into ATG significantly at the time. It would be great though if you'd be willing and have time to summarise how you understand the CCTS to facilitate interoperability. I have a bit of a feel for it but have hardly seen it discussed or made to happen. It has only been my experience to date to see CCTS implemented separately and now I'm about to start some work on interoperability (perhaps you'd have a look at the soon-to-start TC called SET in OASIS i you haven't already) and would welcome whatever insight folk would share about how CCTS might actually facilitate mappings, etc. All the best -- Stephen D. Green Partner SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 Associate Director Document Engineering Services http://www.documentengineeringservices.com http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]