Re: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Using CCs correctly (was Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs(Michael/Sue's and Stephen's))

From: Tim McGrath <>

To: Sue Probert <>

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:46:03 +0800

ouch!  i dont think anyone in UBL has a desire for a different furrow - we
just dont know what the proper one is.  

as the UBL liaison to CEFACT, perhaps you can answer the questions i put to
Mark.  How can we implement core components today, for UBL 1.0 (or even UBL
1.1)?  where is it we have not applied CCTS semantic naming rules correctly?

my point to Mark is that this is not going anywhere if  no-one can say what
UBL needs to do to "work together with  TBG17 to agree, prove, implement
and pass on to the CCTS development team the  clarifications which are essential
to ensure that we can build and use a common  Core Component Library."
 personally, i thought UBL had done (and was still doing) this - but obviously
you don't agree.

I am not sure what you mean by "'throw their candidate CCs  over the wall'
and then do not participate in the spirit and the work of the  follow-up
harmonisation" - isn't that what the overlapping members and liaisons
between UBL and TBG17 should be doing? Has there been any formal feedback
or follow up from TBG17 to UBL?  as far as i know the work done by TBG17
is still within the CEFACT environment for comment and has not been published
to a wider audience*.  so i find to hard to know how we can "be taking
the TBG17  clariifications and their draft library into very serious consideration
for UBL. "

Am i missing something here? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  Sue's
comment about "giving wider international standardisation a try" should
really be to the whole TC and not me personally (i hope).  

* I am aware of some of the TBG17 work through seeing an excellent  presentation
by Hisano Sugamata when I was in China at an ebXML Asia meeting last month
- but this was presented as very much a first draft and was said to be still
being debated within TBG17.

Sue Probert wrote:

  
  
  
 
  
 
  
Hi  Tim

 
  
 

 
  
TBG17  is a collection of people exactly trying
to 'do something about this' and their  number include several past and/or
present UBL library SC members who care  passionately about working together,
under the only truly international  business users forum that we have, to
try and solve this problem in a  single, published unambiguous way. This
will not be  trivial and it will not be easy.

 
  
 

 
  
I  humbly suggest that, in order to maximise all
our world wide efforts to achieve  the holy grail of improved semantic interoperability,
we work together with  TBG17 to agree, prove, implement and pass on to the
CCTS development team the  clarifications which are essential to ensure that
we can build and use a common  Core Component Library.

 
  
 

 
  
This  TBG17 work is progressing well with a number
of useful clarifications  already available togethre with a draft library
which is certainly proving its  worth with several user communities with
which I am either working or  familiar.

 
  
 

 
  
How  about UBL giving wider international standardisation
a try, Tim? TBG17 cannot  succeed while submitters simply finish their work,
'throw their candidate CCs  over the wall' and then do not participate in
the spirit and the work of the  follow-up harmonisation. IMHO we should now
be taking the TBG17  clariifications and their draft library into very serious
consideration for UBL.  BTW I do not believe that UBL will be able to achieve its
 potential impact if it continues to plough a separate CCTS  furrow.

 
  
 

 
  
regards

 
  
 

 
  
Sue