MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] about the relation with CCTS
From: Tim McGrath <>
To:
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:22:52 +0800
I am not sure we would call it a simplification, but you are correct UBL
only defines BIEs not CCs.
Core Components are abstract (syntax-independent) definitions that take
physical form as BIEs. So we can have a CC for Address that is
expressed as a BIE called Address in UBL and a BIE called Location in
another syntax or another vocabulary. BIEs share the same basic meaning
as their orginal Core Component but have been contextualized to be used
in specific circumstances.
The problem with this approach is that UBL started before any Core
Components had been defined by the ebXML Core Components group. UBL
assumed that behind each of our BIEs would be a CC of some kind. But it
was not our role to define these.
Unfortunately it has taken UN/CEFACT some time to re-organize its
activities and only recently did the UN/CEFACT's TBG17 (the inheritors
of the ebXML CC task) announce their first 21 draft CCs. We submitted
our BIEs to TBG17 as "candidate core components" and are now working
through the process of how we align our submission to be more TBG17
friendly.
So the short answer is, UBL does not (and should not) define CCs - the
world only needs one of these and the UN seems the best place to do this.
wrote:
>Dear UBL-TC,
>
>Now, I'm trying to understand the relationship between UBL
>specification & UN/CEFACT CCTS.
>
>But, I have a question about the UBL specification.
>
>According to the concept of CCTS, there are two different concepts;
>CC and BIE. And there are four types of CCs; ACC, ASCC, BCC and CCT.
>And BIEs are developed based on these CCs under a particular
>Business Context.
>
>But in the UBL specification, I can't find any ACCs, ASCCs and BCCs.
>The BIEs seem to be derived from DTs or the other BIEs, without CCs.
>
>I think some simplifications of the concept of CCTS might have been
>adopted in the process of defining the UBL, but I'm not sure.
>
>So, could you tell me the reason why there is no ACCs, ASCCs, and
>BCCs in UBL specification?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Shin
>-----------------------------------------
>Shin Takagi
>Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.
>4-11-4, Omorikita, Ota-ku,
>Tokyo, 143-8545 Japan
>Tel:+81-3-3763-5403 Fax:+81-3-3763-0469
>E-mail:
>-----------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
