Re: Tags and semantics ( was Dotted Names)

[Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>]

Martin,

   You are right the emphasis is too much on technology, and not on
business.

  The fact that some members are calling a message exchange a 'business
transaction' says it all.

 Just ask a member of the business community if he recognises such a
definition and he will wonder what planet we are on.

 Perhaps, as has been asked before, we shuold define a core-component ;-)

We must never forget that ebXML or any other XML will only be any good if it
serves the business community well.

We should start with business and end with technological solutions.

Such business concepts such as exist appear to be at the 'event level' e.g
REA which seems to me to be reinventing
double entry book keeping in another guise, ha ha !!

Cheers, Phil


----- Original Message -----
From: <martin.me.roberts@bt.com>
To: <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Tags and semantics ( was Dotted Names)


> Folks,
> The debate about how the syntax represents the semantics is all very
> well, but we end up with atleast two missing points.
>
> 1) The core components willnot hold the complete set of semantics
> sent in messages, some of this will come from the application of context
> rules.  This means that any message that has had context applied will have
> to be 'explained' to both the sender and the receiver in order that they
> interpret it in the same manner.
>
> 2) This is the hardest part of ebXML. We are arguing about how two
> parties can interpret items such as Firstname.  As simple concept, yet in
> asia Firstname means surname.  I am working with a published library
(xCBL)
> and I have to explain each and every element and attibute to the community
> of interest in order that we are all speaking the same language.  XML
syntax
> seems to make the messages more accessable thatn CSV for example, as a
human
> can make a stab at understanding them.  It also helps in discussing
message
> set in that the two human developers at each end can talk directly from
> examples of the real messages with out requiring a further translation
step.
> However,  as it stands XML does NOT of it self solve the semantic
problems.
> I even have my doubts about the taxonomy approach as I find that language
is
> not strictly based on fixed taxonomies and flexibilty of meaning is
> sometimes required.
>
> So what do we do?  I feel that the Core Components, (as slim as they
> might be) need to have their semantics honed to a precise and unambiguous
> manner.  I.e that there should be a definition of what firstname means for
> example.  With this we need to then start to expand the semantic
definitions
> beyond to include typical applications of context.  This could be done in
> two ways, 1) the publication of context rules libraries with clear
> definitions attached or 2) adding components to the core library in such a
> way that context has been applied.  An example of this would be ,
>
> Core component Party would be defined
> Context component Supplier.Party would be defined as well.  This
> would mean that the level of context rules would be at the margins and not
> on every message.
>
> Sadly, I feel that some of the sniping that has gone on in this area
> has belittled the difficulties that the discovery teams have encountered
and
> also in making some decisions in the ebXML process, the technology has
been
> given the front seat (because it is relatively easy to define a new
> messaging protocol for example) and the semantics have been pushed back
> because it is very VERY deifficult, but I feel non the less important for
> that.
>
> Martin M.E. Roberts
> xml designer, BTexaCT
> 01473 643775
> martin.me.roberts@bt.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent: 18 April 2001 03:26
> To: John McClure
> Cc: 'ebXML Core' (E-mail); DCN Architecture; LegalXML; Probert, Sue;
> CRAWFORD, Mark
> Subject: RE: Dotted-name Tags (was RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again)
>
>
> Message text written by John McClure
> >Wow. I'm an old REXX guy, and that language has dotted-names too. Doesn't
> Python also use dotted-names?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> John,
>
> Ooops.  Too many TREX out there!
>
> But now I know just how old you are ; -)
>
> REXX - huh?  Real men use CMS scripts and Xedit macros and 360's,
> none of them highflutting fancy systems...
>
> No - the TREX you need can be found at :
>
>  http://www.thaiopensource.com/trex/
>
> and
>
>  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/trex/index.shtml
>
>  "There is a genuine need for a straightforward, easy-to-learn XML schema
> language, and TREX delivers that," said James Clark, who will serve as
> chair of the OASIS TREX Technical Committee.
>
> enjoy, DW.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>