Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]

[Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>]

Hi David,

The idea of different profiles came from studying many use cases where xCIQ
were applicable.
We came across many situations where people were discouraged by the size and
complexity of the standards.

It is possible to achieve the same results with less effort thru
simplification and normalisation of xCIQ. This is the main driver for the
change.

Take UDDI for example. We are considering some revamp to the contact details
area. It would be sensible to use xNAL there, but it is just too big. The
contact details part may become larger than the rest of the UDDI schema. :-)

I don't know why you are talking about bells and whistles - I didn't propose
any.
Neither I mentioned webservices (did I?) - xCIQ are passive data structures.
If we decide to add any functionality it will be xCIQ API then.

CAM is a great idea. I think that any standard will benefit from adopting
it. On the other hand, it is a burden for implementers. Is it possible to
use CAM as an optional add-on feature?

We also need to keep in mind that the era of the semantic web is not far
away and gear up to this. Ram told me to make an RDF schema for xNAL as far
as 2 years ago. I also included it as a requirement.

Anyway, it's good to see that we got the ball rolling this time :-)

Cheers,
Max




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>; <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, 2 February 2004 17:18
Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]


> Max,
>
> Looking at your document seems to me these are
> all OLD requirements!?!
>
> I like the idea of creating PROFILES.
>
> I'm a bit hestitant over going with the requirements
> document as you have it.  Certainly from the
> address point of view - we can categorize
> communities (aka profiles).  But specific
> technical features (web service, et al) I think
> we should be careful of.   Better to stay
> more abstract - and then look at a selection
> of methods.  People can always bolt on
> technical bells and whistles as they desire
> to our foundation methods then.
>
> In this regard - I believe the UPU has a
> comprehensive and clear set of requirements
> for postal addressing.
>
> What I'd like to see is us taking that and
> creating one sample PROFILE for CIQ
> and UPU using CAM templates as the
> bridge.  CAM is providing a method
> based around UID references, noun,
> and sub-assemblies.
>
> Now we have the open source CAM
> processor available ( http://jcam.org.uk )
> there is nothing technically impeding this
> work.  I know the UPU has some
> excellent test data (and I'm sure there is others
> such as Australia, Japan, etc) that we can use.
>
> By making one such PROFILE - I believe
> we will then be in a position to understand
> how these other areas may also be addressed.
>
> What I see here is that the challenge for CIQ
> is really one of moving beyond what XSD has
> to offer - and using techniques that can
> provide the level of eBusiness re-use of
> address structures that are required.
>
> If you crack that nut - then all these
> profiles will fit neatly into place.
>
> Thanks, DW.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
> To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:15 PM
> Subject: [ciq] new requirements
>
>
> > Hi Ram,
> >
> > As we decided to get started with a new version of our standards I'd
like
> to
> > upload a requirements documents.
> >
> > Could you please, create a folder for draft documents on v.next?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Max
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
>
>