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
