OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives


Title: RE: Representation Types Alternatives
Margaret
 
Apologies! How could I have forgotten that we did, in San Jose, take into account the list or representation terms from the UN/EDIFACT MDRs as well as those from BSR and CALS.
 
However, as you rightly point out these have now been updated and we should now take account of this as well whilst updating the ebXML list.
 
Thanks for the reminder.
 
best regards
 
Sue

Sue Probert
Director, Document Engineering
Commerce One
Tel: +44 1332 342080
www.commerceone.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Pemberton [mailto:diskray@w150.aone.net.au]
Sent: 11 April 2001 10:28
To: Blantz, Mary Kay; 'CRAWFORD, Mark'; rawlins@metronet.com; ebXML-core
Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives

Mary Kay
 
You might like to know that the UN/EDIFACT Message Design Rules Group used ISO 11179 as the basis for naming of UN/EDIFACT data elements. They recently decided against the use of 'value' as a representation term (though we originally thought that it was a good idea). The main reason was that it did deviate from 11179. When we looked at the existing EDIFACT data elements that had no other logical representation term other than value, we were able to categorise them all by the addition of the following representation terms:
 
        age, date, degree, measure, period, text and time
 
 
Did the London group look at the new MDR (Version 6 as approved at Washington EWG) when coming up with their latest list of representation terms??
 
Margaret
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:35 PM
Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives

Last week the CC Editors worked on various areas, including Representation Types.  That is part of our
CC Naming Conventions document, and that team is led by Hartmut Hermes who was with us in London.
 
We agreed that the best choice would be to follow an approved standard:  11179.  As far as I know,
the only deviation was in the definition of 'value' which is commonly used to describe the actual data
being sent.
 
MKB
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:44 PM
To: 'rawlins@metronet.com'; ebXML-core
Subject: RE: Representation Types Alternatives

Mike,

        I believe the Representation Types should be consistent with the data types of BP.  Conversely, BP data types should support those that are available in all existing syntax specific instances of an ebXML document.  For example, if there are data types available in the W3C schema specification that are missing from those of BP, then BP should be adjusted accordingly.

Mark Crawford



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:34 PM
> To: ebXML-core
> Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives
>
>
> In the week since I posted this only Bob Miller (for #1), and
> Martin Bryan
> (who agrees with me on #2) expressed any opinion (unless I'm missing
> someone).   Shall the editors be directed to make this change
> or does anyone
> else have anything to say about it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Mike Rawlins wrote:
>
> > In my comments during the first review cycle I noted
> several problems
> > with representation types as they are currently defined.  I
> see these
> > problems as show stoppers that must be fixed before final
> approval.  The
> > 1.02 documents seem to have few changes in this area.   I
> suggest that
> > the two most promising ways to handle my concerns are:
> >
> > 1)  Formally define representation types, refining the current
> > definitions
> >
> > 2)  Adopt an existing set of data types.  Several
> candidates exist:  The
> > most likely is the set identified in the BP Specification Schema,
> > section 9.1 - Data Typing.  Other choices are the datatypes
> defined in
> > XML schema or UML.
> >
> > Before one or the other is adopted, a pertinent question to
> ask first is
> > what is the purpose of representation types?  If the purpose is to:
> >
> > a)  merely constrain the value space ("set of values" is how it is
> > stated in the CC spec), then I suggest we take alternative 2 as the
> > simplest approach.  We may then define a set of primitive properties
> > such as quantity, amount, etc., that are reusable and may
> take the place
> > of some of the current representation types that would be
> dropped with
> > such an approach.
> >
> > b)  If the purpose is to constrain the value space *and* provide the
> > analyst/modeler with a level of abstraction and higher level of
> > reusability than the types offered by the Specification
> Schema, XML, or
> > UML, then we should define a set of types rather than adopt
> one.  When
> > defining the set, we should fully specify all of the
> relevant fields for
> > each type (for example - measure has both value and units).
> >
> > I tend to favor a) since it is simpler, can probably be
> done with less
> > effort, and more aligned with the BP and other work.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC