thanks for the offer. What was your opinion on the draft I sent?
Martin Forsberg wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> I hope to be able to help you with this work Tim.
>
> I think we will encounter a couple of typical situations in this
> exercise.
> 1. We have a new CC and BIE that doesn't exist in Cefact (like
> Attachment)
> 2. We have a CC and BIE that differs pretty much to an existing one in
> Cefact (like Tax)
> 3. We have a CC and BIE with a good match (like Address)
>
> Is it up to us to identify these situations or will the harmonization
> machinery (TBG17) in Cefact sort it out?
>
> (Copied from TBG17 Submission Guideline-document:
> Harmonization should ensure that a single semantic concept is captured
> in one and only one Core Component structure. This may conflict with
> different views on that concept in different contexts and it may
> conflict with the emergence of new submissions.
>
> If it is agreed, that there is a need two have two or more Core
> Component structures for the same semantic concept, then the CC Library
> administration has to make sure that they refer to each other in order
> to guarantee that any further development will be a consistent one.)
>
>
> /Martin Forsberg
> SFTI, Sweden
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:]
> Sent: den 7 februari 2007 06:26
> To:
> Subject: [ubl] UBL 2.0 submission to UN/CEFACT Core component Library
>
> Now that UBL 2.0 is finalized we plan to submit the UBL 2.0 Business
> Information Entities to UN/CEFACT as part of our contribution to their
> Core Component library.
>
> This involves transcribing the UBL library onto the spreadsheeets
> submission forms required by the TBG17 group within UN/CEFACT.
>
> Before we go too far down this path I would like to get a review of the
> submission by the UBL TC. This is because the submission requires some
> interpretation of our library into CEFACT forms. For example, I propose
> that we submit our BIEs as both candidate BIE and candidate Core
> Components. To better understand the issues I have prepared a draft of
> the submission using only the UBL 2.0 "Address". (attached)
>
> In this form you will note that for Candidate BIEs:
> a. I have made the context of "System Constraint" to have the value of
> "XML" - in that we are only proposing XML representations of these
> objects.
> b. BBIEs with qualified Property Terms (such as AdditionalStreetName)
> are derived from the unqualified Basic Core Component (such as
> "StreetName").
>
> And for Candidate Core Components:
> a. No qualifiers are needed. (so not all candidate BIEs are candidate
> CCs) b. I have noted the mapping of our candidates to the current CEFACT
> Core Component Identifiers (where one exists).
>
> I welcome comments and advice (as well as volunteers to help) with this
> task.
>
> The current plan is to have this submitted before the next CEFACT Forum
> meeting at the end of March.
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
>
>
>
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
