Taking Sue's comments, I have modified Mike's latest class diagram
(Normalised Model v11-01) and overlaid the possible alignment and
connection points with the two views (trade and transport).
The basic concept is that the trade 'shipment' mirrors the transport
'consignment' with its 'package', 'transport equipment',' goods
details','freight charges', and 'shipment stage'. that is, the latter
objects can be used to associated a transport object with a trade
object. for example, a shipment may have many packages and each of
these packages may be in a consignment - but they do not all need to be
in the same consignment (and vice versa). i think this is what sue
means by 'not necessarily 1 to 1'.
i am attaching two powerpoint slides, the first shows how we can adjust
our existing model and the second slide shows how this can be plugged
into the transport model when we come to need it.
we also need to establish our controlled vocabulary terms for these objects.
i shall include this discussion on today's agenda so please comment as
soon as possible.
Probert, Sue wrote:
>Tim
>
>I have had a chance to prepare the attached comments for discussion
>tomorrow. These are specifically regarding the trade/transport aspects.
>
>cheers
>
>Sue
>
>Sue Probert
>Senior Director, Document Standards
>Commerce One
>Mobile: +44 7798 846652
>Tel: +44 1425 275117 or +44 1753 483000
>email:
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim McGrath [mailto:]
>Sent: 25 November 2002 01:46
>To:
>Subject: [ubl-lcsc] [Analysis Team] Transport models
>
>
>as requested, here is my attempt to align the 'transport' model sue
>provided with our current 'trade' model.
>
>i also include an attempt at integrating the two. (see attached powerpoint).
>
>note that some of the terminology has changed in an attempt at more
>clarity.
>
>
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
