RE: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML BusinessDocument framework

["Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>]

William:

This seems to be a very basic part of what we have been doing - I am
suprised that you missed this! Let me summarize:

The point of the contextual definition of core components, and of modelling
those core components, is to be able to render a picture of semantic
relationships (along with some of the details such as representation
formats) *independent of syntax binding*. While EDIFACT and XML have
different syntaxes, they are capable of expressing the same semantics.

If we can trace back from contextual use of a set of core semantic
definitions from a syntax, to the common semantic definitions, then we can
establish the relationships between the two disparate syntaxes. They share
semantics, after all. This enables us to do things that are impossible
today, such as auto-generate mappings between syntaxes or vocabularies, or
to automatically determine where my document definitions and yours disagree,
even though we may have used different local names for the same bits of
data.

The use or non-use of xCBL is irrelevant here: the same approach holds true
no matter what syntax or vocabulary you use.

The point is, we don't get rid of translators: we get rid of the effort
involved in trying to define the semantic mappings that are today
time-consuming and expensive. 

Cheers,

Arofan Gregory

-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:23 AM
To: 'ebXML Core'
Subject: Re: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML
BusinessDocument framework


Martin Bryan wrote to remind us "that one of the requirements that ebXML
is supposed to address is the interworking between existing EDIFACT
systems and those based on ebXML. Can anyone suggest how this would be
possible if xCBL was used as the base?"

Dear Martin:

A translator could be used, maybe?

The only way you could have transparent compatibility between UN/EDIFACT
and ebXML would be if the latter were based on a mechanical wrapper
scheme, such as DIN 16557-5 [Rules for generation of XML schema files
(XSD) on the basis of EDI(FACT) implementation Guidelines], the former
XML Solution's XEDI, or X12's various incarnations of wrappers.

But, hey! Don't get discouraged: you can transport EDI files (both X12
and UN/EDIFACT) as payloads using the TR&P Messaging Services!

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-core-request@lists.ebxml.org