Re: Representation Types Alternatives (Fwd)

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>]

William,
Thanks for your comment on Business Process Specification Schema Version 0.99.
I fully agree with you that section 9.1. should be removed. It was relevant
against the previous version that still had a document and information model.
It is now no longer relevant in the BP spec, but falls under the
responsibility of CC.

Unless anyone else has objections we will remove section 9.1 Data typing from
the Business Process Specification Schema for the final Version.

thanks,
-karsten

>----------------Begin Forwarded Message----------------<

From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
To: "Smith, Neal L. \(NLSM\)" <NLSM@chevron.com>
Cc: "Karsten Riemer \(E-mail\)" <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:10:31 -0400

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







>----------------End Forwarded Message----------------<