RE: [regrep] Core Components Riddle

joe, 

my comments in the text 
below...

 

Regards,

Ivan

De : Chiusano Joseph 
[mailto:] 
Envoyé : mardi 5 avril 2005 
00:38
À : 
Objet : 
[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).  

[IB] No, I can't belive that 
;) 

The solutions 
are:

1) if yours BIEs are enough 
generics you could consider to ask to TBG to process your business 
requirements and to start the standardization process. For that is enough 
to presents two documents. One decribes the BP features of your business (the 
BRS Business Requirement Specifications) and the other one (the RSM Requirement 
Specification Mapping) describes yours business documents in UML format (these 
documents are often already part of the business 
specifications)

2 ) if yours BIE are too 
specifics and they do not need to be globals you can define yours business 
documents using CCTS rules. (which is likely a good format to define business 
exchanges)
 

 

- 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?

[IB] CCTS doesn't provide tools for that yet. it only 
describe how to modelling yours data and rules, after you have some rules to 
transform that in xsd format (see the NDR document). Actually you have to 
develop yourself the content validation. as David suggests CAM could provide 
this feature.

 

 

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. 

([IB] It will 
come ...)

- 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? 

[IB]  I don't understand your feel. isn't it an implementation issue 
? 

 

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). 

[IB] In my experience I see 
every time a new way to describe business data, and every time I spent some time 
to understand how they are built. After that I've to understand how they 
are transformed in xml or other, how they are stored and of course I spend 
some time to find information.... (and of course this implies that someone has 
spent time to do that)

The ebXML framework will provide 
tools for develop, manage and implement business data (see the UN/CEFACT 
Registry effort for example) and it will decrease the investiments efforts to 
bring up new trading exchanges.

 

Could it answer to your 
questions?!?

 

regards,

Ivan

 

 

Thanks,

Joe

 

Joseph Chiusano

Booz Allen Hamilton

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