hmm, thinking it over I would probably suppose the following:

1. there may well be a benefit to having a CCTS NDR on the basis of
interoperability with all other organizations that have CCTS NDRs.

2. there is probably not much benefit to be had generating schemas
from models (unless you assume your schema writers can't be trusted to
know XML schema well etc. I suppose that is a concern but I wonder if
the model is so much easier that problems won't show up)

What do people observe as to the costs of mandating and analyzing CCTS
compliance? I have seen some hairy discussions in UBL, I suppose it
can get quite expensive in such projects as the Navy one.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On 4/26/07, Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > To my understanding of CCTS, having just one possible NDR is against
> > > the spirit of CCTS - completely against it. CCTS should be
> > implementation
> > > technology agnostic - that's one of the main tenets behind
> > it's very
> > > concept.
>
> Agreed.  I think there is some confusion here about the CCTS standards
> stack in general, and the UN/CEFACT Standards Stack in particular. The
> CCTS standards stack consists of CCTS.  It requires the use of no other
> specification - UN/CEFACT or other - for implementation. The UN/CEFACT
> CCTS standards stack however does have a defined XML NDR as part of the
> stack - for use by UN/CEFACT. Further CCTS does not require any syntax
> specific set of rules.  In fact its power is in its syntax neutrality
> and its context mechanisms.
>
> > There are actually three XML NDRs for CCTS:
> >
> > 1. UBL 2.0 NDR
> > 2. ATG2 XML NDR 2.0, and 1.0
> > 3. OAGIs 9 v0.7 NDR
>
> Actually, there are many more and I am not sure I would include OAGi 9
> at this point.  The US Department of the Navy for example has their own
> CCTS NDR.  What is interesting is that many SDOs have realized - driven
> in large part by their membership - that it makes no sense to have
> different flavors of NDRs and that yes there is real value in being able
> to auto generate schema from the business models.  OAGi, GS1, CIDX,
> ACORD, UN/CEFACT, UBL,RosettaNet, AIAG and others have come together to
> work collaboratively on the next set of UN/CEFACT XML NDRs that will
> serve as a convergence point for all of these organizations.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Mark Crawford
> SAP Standards Architect
> Global Ecosystem and Partner Group
> Office: 703 670-0920
> Mobile: 703 485-5232
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Chair UN/CEFACT Applied Technologies Group
> Lead, UN/CEFACT XML NDR Standard
> Lead Editor, UN/CEFACT Core Components
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>