RE: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments

["Blantz, Mary Kay" <mblantz@netfish.com>]

Bon Jour Alain,

I did not mean that we would be using the BSR, I was not making
any recommendation in that regard.  We are working on the same
kind of structure to some extent.

One of the Core Components people who is on the team for this
activity is Hartmut, who is certainly a TC 154 person.  As am I,
for the United States.  

If we, on Core Components, do our job very well then I think that
the good aspects of all the previous work will be used effectively and
the problems will be left behind.

Mary Kay

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Chapdaniel [mailto:alain.chapdaniel@actimum.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:31 AM
To: Blantz, Mary Kay; 'Philip Goatly'; Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com
Cc: ebXML Core
Subject: Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments


I support, it's why I think BSR is useful.
Best regards

Alain Chapdaniel
alain.chapdaniel@actimum.com
ACTIMUM
http://www.actimum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Blantz, Mary Kay <mblantz@netfish.com>
To: 'Philip Goatly' <philip.goatly@bolero.net>; Blantz, Mary Kay
<mblantz@netfish.com>; <Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com>
Cc: ebXML Core <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:33 AM
Subject: RE: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments


> Unique identifiers, probably entirely numeric.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Goatly [mailto:philip.goatly@bolero.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:55 AM
> To: Blantz, Mary Kay; Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com
> Cc: ebXML Core
> Subject: Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments
>
>
> Given different tags in different languages etc. how will interoperability
> work ???
>
> We had this trouble some time ago (several thousand years) in the Plain of
> Shinar - will we ever learn !!!
>
> Cheers, Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Blantz, Mary Kay" <mblantz@netfish.com>
> To: <Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com>; "Philip Goatly"
> <philip.goatly@bolero.net>
> Cc: "ebXML Core" <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:28 PM
> Subject: RE: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments
>
>
> > I haven't wanted to enter this discussion, Steve, but do want to let you
> > know that the plan is to start with Oxford English.  People who
> > require tags in other languages intend to develop Core Components (and
> > tags) in those languages.  We expect French, German, Russian, and
Japanese
> > at the very least.  We may even have some people who want to use
American!
> >
> > Mary Kay
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com [mailto:Steve.GIS.Tompkins@chase.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 5:52 AM
> > To: Philip Goatly
> > Cc: ebXML Core
> > Subject: Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments
> >
> >
> >
> > I must confess that I have not seen the EDIFACT tags yet. This is
> certainly
> > something that I will need to do once I manage to find enough time to
> > ensure that I am still alive. One thing that I would like to point out,
> > even though this is from a point of view within my own morking
enviroment,
> > is this.
> >
> > We are in the process of making our user area more literate in the basic
> > use of XML. This saves us time in the long term in that we do not have
to
> > parse the marked up data into database fields only to have to extract
the
> > data again and rebuild the mark ups. One of the benefits of the XML
model
> > is that it should be humanly readable. As we are in England, as William
so
> > - shall we say tactlessly - proclaimed it is logical to have the mark
ups
> > in English. There seems to be much ado here about nothing. Essentially
we
> > are dealing with an agent and client network that is totally fluent in
> > English. Why should we bother with anything other than English as the
> > language of choice if:
> > 1) It totally fills our needs and requirements unambiguously.
> > 2) Nobody other than English capable people are going to use it.
> > 3) It provides us with more flexibility than a solution that only
> > technically minded people are capable of reading. What are we trying to
> > protect here?
> >
> > I look forward to Mr. Kammerer's inevitable response.
> >
> > ST
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net> on 24/01/2001 09:49:09
> >
> > Please respond to Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>
> >
> >
> >
> > To:   "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>, ebXML Core
> >       <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
> > cc:
> > Subject:  Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments
> >
> >
> > William - thanks for your comments.
> >
> > FYI -I have seen in places - not so far from here :-) tag names of 50-60
> > characters i.e with end tag 100-120 chars
> > and a data 'payload' of  10 chars. - I know bandwidth is larger now but
> > ...........
> >  f only 'techies' need to look at the tags why not used coded tags - a
lot
> > of us can still read EDIFACT messages
> >
> > Phil Goatly
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
> > To: "ebXML Core" <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: Core Component Analysis - SWIFT's Comments
> >
> >
> > > Upon being presented with Steve Tompkins' examples of labeled tags
used
> > > in XML based SWIFT messaging, Philip Goatly has gently reminded us
that
> > > "not every user of ebXML will have English as their mother tongue - in
> > > fact - this may surprise you - a great number of people in the world
do
> > > not even understand English."
> > >
> > > Yes, this is one more example of the overarching arrogance and
> > > tendency towards imperialism that we Americans notice in our cultural
> > > cousins, the English. We are, quite frankly, embarrassed for them.
> > > Thanks for the reminder, Phil.
> > >
> > > But, as discussed much before, the tags are most likely to be read
only
> > > by programmer types, all of whom read English, at least if they're any
> > > good.  So that's not as big a problem as it seems at first.  And if
the
> > > tags are built up in semantic units from a dictionary, like the ISO
BSR
> > > (Basic Semantic Register), then there are just a relatively few words
> > > being used. That's not so bad, is it?  The BSR even includes
> > > translations for the Semantic Components' definitions in French and
> > > German.
> > >
> > > Speaking of the BSR: is any use of it going to be made in the names
for
> > > core components and/or InformationEntityUseNames?  There seems to be
> > > some sort of bias against the BSR evident in certain circles, but I
> > > notice that Hartmut Hermes has a reference to the BSR in his
signature -
> > > so it can't be all dead, yet.
> > >
> > > I think Phil is also uncomfortable with the notion of big, long tag
> > > names built up from semantic units - like those suggested by SWIFT's
> > > Jacques Littré: BirthDate, DeathDate, and IncorporationDate.  He'd
> > > probably have the same objection to using BSR semantic units as tags:
> > > AccountsPayables.Contact.Person.Name, Approval.DateAndTime or
> > > Consignee.Location.City.Name. But the intent of these techniques based
> > > on ISO 11179 is to give us decomposable names - the same purpose
served
> > > by  EDIFACT qualifiers.  In actuality, any one set of instances of a
> > > particular business message employed in some vertical may only use a
> > > small subset of qualifiers (or components of the Information Entity
> > > name) - there's only so many different types of parties relevant to
> > > Phil's specialty of international trade. Hence, the number of derived
> > > tag names would be fairly finite once you press the button to convert
a
> > > UML data model into an XML schema.
> > >
> > > Phil wonders "[who] would consider making each country a separate
class?
> > > or even worse, who would make each UN-Location Code (UN-LOCODE) of
which
> > > there are 30,000 a separate class?"  Actually, no one.  These codes
> > > serve, in Bob Miller's term, a "reference" service - as opposed to the
> > > "element alias" service provided by the semantic components discussed
> > > above.  See in RE: Units of Measure and follow-up commentary, at
> > > http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200007/msg00073.html.
> > >
> > > Finally, Phil asks "how are we going to deal with many to many
> > > relationships within an XML hierarchy. I am sufficiently old/mature to
> > > remember the problem  we had with such things in Hierarchical
databases
> > > and the factors which led to Relational Databases where relationships
> > > are made at run time. With XML we seem to be back to hierarchies which
> > > may lead to similar difficulties."  I am far too young to answer this.
> > > I will have to yield to Bob Miller.
> > >
> > > William J. Kammerer
> > > FORESIGHT Corp.
> > > 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> > > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> > > +1 614 791-1600
> > >
> > > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> > > "Commerce for a New World"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>