Re: [regrep] Core Components Riddle

From
David Webber \(XML\) <>
Date
2005-04-04T23:24:07+00:00
ID
003c01c5396d$641ae5b0$6e01a8c0@DRRW01
Thread
Re: [regrep] Core Components Riddle
Joe,

 

Of course - I think the CAM executive summary 
probably

covers this off in terms of building industry 
dictionaries - 

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5930/CAM%20Executive%20Overview%20brochure%2003Mar04.pdf

but in a nutshell- you go from the CCTS model to 
the

business nouns in XML in the registry - that now 

gives you the industry dictionary - along with 
re-use.

 

Your re-use improves as you enhance the 
semantics

around the business nouns to include OWL based 

definitions and classification schemes and 
association

links - so the usual "see also", "associated with", 
and

other tools become instanciated.

 

Of course the UBL approach - of publishing a 
pre-defined

set of purpose built transactions also fits in 
here. The

idea being to provide pre-done BPSS scripts, 
CAM

templates, CPA partner profiles, and 
UBL-structure 

schema that allow rapid adoption.

 

Is that enough business benefit level?

 

DW

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Chiusano Joseph 

  
To: David Webber (XML) ;  
  

  
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:00 
PM

  
Subject: RE: [regrep] Core Components 
  Riddle

  

  
Thanks so much David.

  
 

  
Additional opinions, including a "business benefit" 
  level?

  
 

  
Joe

  
 

  
Joseph Chiusano

  
Booz Allen Hamilton

  
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

  
 

  
    

    
    From: David Webber (XML) 
    [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:53 
    PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; 
Subject: 
    Re: [regrep] Core Components Riddle

    

    
Joe,

    
 

    
No surprises here.  If you want to couple 
    CCTS to actual

    
runtime validation and content processing then 
    you

    
have to use technology such as CAM templates - 
    and

    
the associated business noun definitions as 
    XML

    
in registry - so that you now have direct 
    linkage

    
between the model definitions and the 
    runtime.

    
 

    
UBL have been finessing this by using W3C 
    XSD

    
to carry the structure information from the 
    CCTS model

    
with limited content semantics.

    
 

    
This only gets you so far before you hit 
    insurmountable

    
issues relating to context and structure 
    permutations.

    
Not to mention codelist processing and 
    then

    
permutations based of codelist selections - eg 
    if

    
countrycode="US" then require ZIPcode, else 
    require

    
postalcode.

    
 

    
Then you have to use CAM templates to 
    resolve 

    
and implement this.

    
 

    
Since CAM has been purpose built for delivering 
    this

    
for CCTS all along - this is a bit of a 
    non-surprise here.

    
 

    
DW

    
      
----- Original Message ----- 

      
From: 
      Chiusano Joseph 

      
To:  
      

      
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:38 
      PM

      
Subject: [regrep] Core Components 
      Riddle

      

      
Now that our 
      V3.0 specs are in OASIS public review, I have a general question on Core 
      Components please:

      
 

      
The basic 
      question is: What precise value do Core Components bring for data 
      exchanges?

      
 

      
More 
      details:

      
 

      
Scenario #1: 
      

      
 

      
- Suppose 2 
      trading partners are exchanging data. 

      
 

      
- Also suppose 
      that none of the Core Components that are used in the exchange are part of 
      the TBG17 Core Component Library (this will be the variable for the next 
      scenario). 

      
- The sending 
      trading partner decides to indicate in their XML document the various Core 
      Component entities (CC's, BIEs, etc.) using a content model (set of 
      elements/attributes) near each entity (where does not matter - but let's 
      assume just below) that indicates what type of entity it is. 
      

      
 

      
- The 
      receiving trading partner processes the XML document, but does not process 
      the entity information because all it "cares" about is the actual data, 
      not the data model. What value does using Core Components bring 
      here?

      
 

      

      
Scenario #2: 
      

      
 

      
- Same 
      as above, except that all 
      of the Core Components that are used in the exchange are part of 
      the TBG17 Core Component Library (and stored in the UN/CEFACT Core 
      Component registry - assume it is in production), and are indicated as 
      such using their registry identifiers.

      
- The 
      receiving trading partner processes the XML document, but should they 
      "care" about the entity information this time? What value does using 
      Core Components bring here? Is it different than the value in Scenario 
      #1?

      
 

      
A third 
      question: Absent any data exchanges, what would motivate someone to "Core 
      Component-enable" all of their data? (for example, creating a relational 
      representation of the CCTS Core Component entity metadata, and populating 
      the tables/fields with the metadata values + the original 
      data).

      
 

      
Thanks,

      
Joe

      
 

      
Joseph Chiusano

      
Booz Allen Hamilton

      
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com