[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.
Sally: Sounds good to me. I think we agree on the basic guiding principle, which is that a "core" component is the same across contexts. Cheers, Arofan -----Original Message----- From: sfuger@AIAG.ORG [mailto:sfuger@AIAG.ORG] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:45 AM To: Gregory, Arofan; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is. Which still doesn't say what a "component" is. As a general rule of thumb, when defining a word, the word itself must not be part of the definition. APICS defines component as follows: component-Raw material, part, or subassembly that goes into a higher level assembly, compound, or other item. This term may also include packaging materials for finished items. See: ingredient, intermediate part. ingredient-In the process industries, the raw material or component of a mixture. intermediate part-Material processed beyond raw material and used in higher level items. While these definitions are related to manufacturing, the concepts seem to me to be very close to what Core Components is building. A possible extension of the definition Arofan cites: "A core component is a data item or aggregate of data items that goes into a higher level assembly of data items and remains the same across all of the business contexts in which it is used." My two cents. Sally -----Original Message----- From: Gregory, Arofan [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:01 PM To: 'William J. Kammerer'; ebXML Core Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is. Folks: The working definition proposed at the Orlando meeting for a core component is one that I still find useful: "A core component is a component that remains the same across all of the business contexts in which it is used." To understand this, you run into how exactly we can define a single "context". I believe the existing work out of CC explains the extent to which a context can be described. Further, we restricted the definition of that component syntactically according to the modelling methodology that Hisano presented, which was finalized shortly after the Orlando meeting. This did not include EDI or XML representations of the core component - it was a UNML-based methodology. I think this work is still useful when considering what a core component is. Cheers, Arofan Gregory -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:02 PM To: ebXML Core Subject: Re: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is. Mark Crawford continues to demand "a firm definition of a core component." As Mark is chair of the Joint EWG/X12 Core Component Team, it would be nice if had a definition of the things he's lording over. The definition of a "core" component depends on what a "component" is. Once you had that, you could just add on verbiage that the "core" ones are "really important and central." Now I might be tempted to proffer an opinion that a component is like a class in object-oriented programming parlance, and then work from there. But I would be met reprovingly with "objects carry viruses." So we'll avoid that tack, as I abhor confrontation. A definition of core component should probably not talk too much about XML or other implementation frameworks, so it should remain satisfactorily abstract. Mike Rawlins would insist that we add "syntax neutral" to any description. I figured there must be something in all the old stale Open-EDI and TMWG stuff that could be cut-and-pasted for a definition. ISO/IEC 14662 - Open-EDI, at http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/jdt/resources/, includes a definition of a "Semantic Component" (SC): "a unit of information unambiguously defined in the context of the business goal of the business transaction. A SC may be atomic or composed of other SCs. SCs are defined by knowledgeable parties such as user groups and proposed for standardisation and registration in one or more repositories...." Is that a start? To Brian Hayes: I have given out the URL for accessing ISO 8601 on a number of occasions on various ebXML mailing lists; e.g., see http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200012/msg00019.html, which refers to http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf. As you undoubtedly retrieved the document from there in the first place, it would have been sufficient to merely pass on the URL. I'm gently hinting that there are ways of avoiding attaching large files to e-mails. Which reminds me: notice that hotels now include a $.10 a minute surcharge for using a local line over 60 minutes? I never paid too much attention to that, as who can talk that much? Well, it came to roost on a slow 34kbs line while downloading e-mail while attending the Washington EWG (and why do the Washington suburbs, in the center of the world, have the worst Internet connections?), as Marcia McClure of the BP group felt it was important to send the same set of multi-megabyte files to multiple mailing lists. 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: email@example.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Powered by eList eXpress LLC