>... create semantic mappings from their representations to these. Right on, Joe! ... We, at the ontolog-forum, have a project that is working on just that. We're going to be releasing some work for public review soon. For those who might be interested, our work-in-progress can be viewed at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation This is open work, therefore, everyone is welcomed. We are soliciting participation too, especially from individuals who have intimate knowledge in translating/mapping of our normative ontology into the various prevailing formats/representations identified in the project plan (see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation#nid0136) Regards, PPY -- Chiusano Joseph wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:46:34 -0400: > "Schuldt, Ron L" wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:32:11 -0600: > >>I concur with Mike's assessment of the current situation with regard to >>adoption of the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) >>version 2pt01. IMHO the most important content (as it relates to >>interoperability) in the CCTS is contained in two tables, Table 8-1 >>"Approved Core Component Types" and Table 8-3 "Permissible >>Representation Terms" >> >>These two tables specify and define the foundation keys to >>interoperability. In other words, I don't care whether you are promoting >>ebXML, Web Services, your favorite vendor solution or any other latest >>hype, until the entire planet reaches consensus on the basic definitions >>of basic core component building blocks, interoperability across >>disparate applications will simply remain a dream. >> >>The fundamental core component building blocks include the following - >>extracted from CCTS v 2.01 Tables 8-1 and 8-3. >> >>Amount >>Binary Object (e.g., Graphic, Picture, Sound, Video) >>Code >>Date Time (also includes Date and Time as specialized forms of Date >>Time) >>Identifier >>Indicator >>Measure >>Numeric (includes Value, Rate and Percent) >>Quantity >>Text (also includes Name as a specialized form of Text) >> >>All ebusiness related standards bodies should be reviewing these basic >>building blocks and discussing the strengths and/or weaknesses and then >>reaching consensus on a final set and then develop strategies for >>migration of their current standards. > > > Or, create semantic mappings from their representations to these. :) > > Kind Regards, > Joe Chiusano > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > > >>Ron Schuldt >>Senior Staff Systems Architect >>Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems >>11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. >>#F521 Mail Point DC5694 >>Littleton, CO 80127 >>303-977-1414 >>ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mcr@rawlinsecconsulting.com] >>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:51 AM >>To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org >>Subject: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability? >> >>If we could consider UBL the source for the common element names, etc., >>then we're well beyond an F but not yet an A. Their body of work isn't >>nearly as rich as the existing EDI standards. >> >>The problem is that we can't consider UBL as the single, common >>source. There are several families of XML business document standards >>that >>purport to be based on ebXML Core Components. UN/CEFACT's approach, >>while >>not as mature as UBL, differs in a few areas. While the OAG has stated >>the >>intent to support ebXML Core Components, their OAGIS represents yet a >>different implementation. And, there is the recently approved X12.7 >>from >>ANSI ASC X12, which lays out yet another approach to XML. And these are >> >>just a few of the more significant examples. One of the work items of >>the >>eBSC Forum, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and >>Technology (NIST), is to facilitate forging a consensus in this area. >> >>Given the current state of affairs, I think a lot of us that were >>involved >>in the original ebXML effort wish very much that it had taken on and >>completed this work item. >> >>If we consider the big picture, that is, not just UBL but all of these >>other efforts, my preliminary assessment right now would be a D or a >>"Gentleman's" C. I hope to see significant improvement, but I'm not >>betting the farm on it. >> >>Regards, >> >>Mike >> >>At 02:42 PM 7/15/2004 +0200, Bryan Rasmussen wrote: >> >> >>>In Mike Rawlin's article 'ebXML and Interoperability'( >>>http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/ebXML3.html) he grades ebXML >> >>on >> >>>various aspects of interoperability. >>>One of the aspects was "Common Expression" defined as "Common set of >> >>XML >> >>>element names, attributes and common usage of those attributes, common >>>approach to document structure" - ebXML didn't address this at all. One >> >>of >> >>>the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's >> >>strategy >> >>>was to enable several existing XML approaches to interoperate rather >>>choosing only one. It also tried to address a very broad scope, with >>>applicability to technologies other than XML." which he gave a grade of >> >>F. >> >>>If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the >> >>common >> >>>set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to >> >>something >> >>>closer approaching an A? >>>This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML, >> >>as >> >>>being designed to be ebXML compatible. If this is a misapprehension on >> >>my >> >>>part please point it out. Thanks. >>> >>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> >> >>The >> >>>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >> >>manager: >> >>><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting >>www.rawlinsecconsulting.com >>Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003) >>www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940 >> >>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The >>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: >> >><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> >> >>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The >>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: >><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> > > The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>