Re: Units of Measure

[David Lyon <djlyon@one.net.au>]

Jeapers Neal,

Your document is well layed out, easy to read and understand.

It introduces the neccessary concepts in a way that is understandable to the
business person, and able to be implemented by those doing the technical
side.

Hopefully ebXML will use something like this as a template for further
documentation.

I also very much like the multiple choice format, whereby multiple methods
of implementation are given, and a choice is then offered.

What is shown so clearly is that there more than one way to achieve the same
thing in XML, for example, the within a tag or within a block question.

Addressing this question and coming up with an answer is as important as an
automobile manufacturer deciding on which thread standard to use for nuts
and bolts in a car, ie English/French/Italian or Metric.

If you don't address these key issues, and leave these questions to the
individual component manufacturers, you end up with such a shomozzle of a
vehicle that nothing really goes together well or stays together for very
long.

So I think your effort is a positive step in the right direction. I hope
that other people in ebXML see it this way too and that we can see
documentation along these lines start to form the basis of the ebXML core
components.

Take care.

David Lyon

----- Original Message -----
From: Smith, Neal L. (NLSM) <NLSM@chevron.com>
To: <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Cc: Cutler, Roger (RTCU) <RTCU@chevron.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 2:54 AM
Subject: FW: Units of Measure


> Core Components Group:
>
> We have received the attached proposal for standard XML data
representations
> for Units of Measure.  Is this something that could/should be expressed as
> ebXML Core Components?  If so, how do we achieve that?
>
> The proposal is from Petrochemical Open Systems Corp, a energy industry
> consortium.
>
> Neal Smith
> Chevron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Bobbitt [mailto:bobbitt@posc.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:24 PM
> > To: XML Activity Group; GML Sig; Nicolai, Roel; Arliss Whiteside
> > Subject: Units of Measure
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Attached is the recommendation paper for units of measure.
> >
> > It is essentially complete in its content, but is not complete in its
> > editorial view. In particular, it has not been formatted for any group
in
> > particular.
> >
> > It is intended that this recommendation will be sent to several groups
> > (four, at present) with the request that they adopt the strong
> > recommendations. The four groups are POSC, OpenGIS, CSIRO, and W3C. If
> > anyone knows of other groups that should also consider adopting the
> > quantityType, please let me know, and we can include them also.
> >
> > [[Since it is to be sent to several groups, I have left the format
> > general. If any group needs the information to be put into a particular
> > format, I would encourage someone to do that (I don't intend to start
> > formatting for all the groups). Ie, I am looking for volunteers to
> > reformat the information contained in the document into whatever format
is
> > necessary for the different particular groups.]]
> >
> > This recommendation is being sent early to members of these groups so
that
> > we can work out differences of opinion NOW. It is not possible to have
an
> > open forum of all these groups in order to discuss the proposal and work
> > out differences of opinions. That is why this is being done in a
virtual,
> > open forum format, so that we can negotiate changes before the formal
> > submissions to these groups.
> >
> > Please express any concerns now, not later. And please do so to all the
> > groups in the mailing list. (Note: the mailing list includes CSIRO and
W3C
> > representatives. So sending it to the above lists will catch some of
those
> > also).
> >
> > My intent is to have all comment taken and incorporated by May 4. This
> > allows time to submit to the OpenGIS at least 3 weeks before the
meeting.
> >
> > I am particularly concerned about ISO. The UML model they have for the
> > limited area of spatial and time units is entirely consistent with the
> > proposal. Yet I have seen no proposed schemas, nor have had no comments
> > from them concerning this implementation of their model. I fear that
they
> > may come forth some day with essentially the same concepts, but with
> > different element names or different "element or attribute" decisions,
or
> > a different units definition model. If anyone has any knowledge of the
ISO
> > units model in these respects, it would be useful to share them with the
> > group.
> >
> > "Philosophic discussion"
> > You should note that I put a section of user requirements at the front
of
> > the document. I feel that the user requirements must drive the ultimate
> > model. If a group has a particular requirement, it is up to us to meet
> > that requirement - it is NOT up to us to judge the requirement as
> > irrelevant. I have tried to meet every requirement given to me over the
> > last several months - sometimes with a single element or attribute. If
you
> > can find some place where I have missed a user requirement, please let
me
> > know, and we can change things to meet the requirement. If you find that
> > you have a requirement that is not listed (and not met), please let me
> > know.
> >
> > In some cases, the requirement is met by suggesting extensions (eg, list
> > of values, generalizing the conversion model, adding a precision
> > attribute). Please let me know about missing or unresolved requirements.
> >
> > John
> > --
> > John I. Bobbitt
> > Energy eStandards          Web: http://www.energyestandards.org
> > Off:(713)267-5174          Web: http://www.posc.org
> > Fax:(713)784-9219          email: bobbitt@posc.org
> > Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than
> > in the one where they sprung up.    --Oliver Wendell Holmes
> > <<UomRecommendations.doc>>
>