Comment Against Business Process specification Schema Version 0.9 9

["Smith, Neal L. (NLSM)" <NLSM@chevron.com>]

> Comment from William J. Kammerer. 
> 
> --------------------------
> Neal Smith
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William J. Kammerer <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
> To: Smith, Neal L. (NLSM) <NLSM@MSSITE01.ion.chevron.com>
> CC: Karsten Riemer (E-mail) <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
> Sent: Wed Apr 11 18:10:31 2001
> Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives
> 
> Comments against Business Process Specification Schema Version 0.99
> (03/19/2001)
> 
> 1. Line Range the comment is against
> 
> 2978-3010
> 
> 2. Comment
> 
> Completely unnecessary
> 
> 3. Rational for the comment
> 
> Datatypes are not referred to from any of the BP documents.  Schema and
> DTD data types, and representation terms are supposedly going to be
> taken care of by Core Components.   There's no need to parrot what's
> already in XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, and is accepted wisdom.
> 
> 4. Suggestion for change
> 
> Complete remove Section 9.1 Data typing, consisting of 9.1.1 Global Data
> types and 9.1.2 Local Datatypes.
> 
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
> 
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "accelerating time-to-trade"
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Smith, Neal L. (NLSM)" <NLSM@chevron.com>
> To: "'William J. Kammerer'" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
> Cc: "Karsten Riemer (E-mail)" <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 7:28 PM
> Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives
> 
> 
> William,
> 
> I am tracking comments on the BP 0.99 specification for the BP team.  I
> would like to encourage you to submit the thoughts below as a public
> comment.  Please follow the guidelines laid out at
> http://www.ebxml.org/specdrafts/specs_for_review.htm
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Neal Smith
> Chevron
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William J. Kammerer [SMTP:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: ebXML Core
> > Cc: ebXML BP
> > Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives
> >
> > Thanks to Margaret Pemberton for the news that the UN/EDIFACT Message
> > Design Rules has added the new representation terms of age, date,
> > degree, measure, period, text and time.   DISA's Gaile Spadin
> informed
> > me that the documentation from the Washington EWG is now available at
> > the UN/EDIFACT (EWG) web site, at http://www.edifact-wg.org/, under
> > "Washington, March 2001 : Minutes, Documents & Presentations."   The
> > Message Design Rules for EDI Release - 2.3 (TRADE/CEFACT/R.840/Rev.6)
> of
> > 2001-01-03 contains the new, complete list of representation terms in
> > section B.5: age, amount, code, date, degree, description, identifier,
> > measure, name, number, percent, period, quantity, rate, text and time.
> >
> > Compare these to Section 6 - List of Representation Types - in the
> ebXML
> > Naming Convention for Core Components Version 1.02 (21 March 2001):
> > Amount, Code, Count, Date, DateAndTime, Identifier, Indicator,
> Measure,
> > Percent, Quantity, Rate, Text and Time.
> >
> > Why can't UN/EDIFACT and ebXML use the same list of representation
> > terms?  What's Mike Rawlins' hangup with the terms anyway?  And why is
> > BP bothering with listing Data Types in Section 9.1 Data typing in the
> > Business Process Specification Schema Version 0.99 (03/19/2001)?  Of
> all
> > the things that need to be explained, W3C Schema Datatypes aren't one
> of
> > them since the information is readily available at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ - which should be a normative
> > reference in the BP specification. Anyway, BP's aiming at a moving
> > target and is already out of date: the timeInstant datatype has since
> > been replaced by dateTime in XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes!
> >
> > By the way, DIN 16557-5, Rules for generation of XML scheme files
> (XSD)
> > on the basis of EDI(FACT) implementation guidelines, is in the same
> set
> > of Washington EWG documentation.  It's in English, fortunately.  Say,
> > why doesn't Core Components just adopt DIN 16557-5, declare victory
> and
> > close up shop?
> >
> > William J. Kammerer
> > FORESIGHT Corp.
> > 4950 Blazer Pkwy.
> > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> > +1 614 791-1600
> >
> > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> > "accelerating time-to-trade"
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>