[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]
Max, And being simple is what CAM is about. Max I believe the two tier approach: 1 - XSD 2 - CAM is exactly what is needed. People who have worked a while with XSD realize the limits and it does not take them long to figure out CAM is worth their time and effort in moving to a new level of sophistication. But for really simple local point-to-point stuff - XSD often is enough. Large scale enterprise wide systems clearly need more. How about I send you some verbage on CAM offline - and you see if you can re-consitute that into such as re-vamping of the CIQ approach document? The third piece we've not mentioned here is creating a registry and dictionary and vocabularies of CIQ semantics and nouns. What I'll send you covers off those possiblities too - so I guess that is 3) on our list! Cheers, DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz> To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements] > David, > > Again, it's an old argument. > We have to be realistic - people are not going to embrace CAM just because > it's a good idea and there is an open source implementation. There are many > factors affecting this: > 1. they don't understand it > 2. they have never heard about it > 3. they are conservative > 4. they require wider industry support to adopt the standard > > Same thing applies to RDFS and OWL. > > Take for example NZ E-Gov with their flavour of xNAL. They had a very well > defined requirement - "we wanna keep it simple". If I said "CAM" there they > would walk away. There are others who would readily embrace it. There is no > one size fits all. > > So, the idea is - let's keep it simple and modular. Everyone will simply > pick the level of complexity that suits the task. > What if we stage it this way: > > 1. Main stream - agree on the basic structures and define them in XSD. > 2. add additional features such as CAM and RDFS > > David, why don't you grab the requirements document and make a few changes > as you see it? :-) > > 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: Tuesday, 3 February 2004 10:19 > Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements] > > > > Max, > > > > OK. > > > > Actually I'm seeing that a CAM template is just the same > > as an XSD in terms of implementation here. > > > > Since the CAM processor is open source now - people > > needing the level of functionality CAM brings you will > > not have any impediment. > > > > People who want to do more with their information > > exchanges quite simply cannnot get this for "free". > > > > Whether its RDF or OWL or CAM - you have to > > use software to do something useful with it. > > > > But here's the good news about CAM templates - > > they are designed so you can hand-edit and read them. > > > > Its not like you have to have some GUI tool to > > interpret it for you. > > > > And you can paste your CIQ instances right into > > the CAM template structure and then add the > > CAM rules below it - so there is minimal > > impact on your existing content. > > > > The PPT link I provided contains a link to > > an example that uses multiple address formats, > > so you can see how easy this is to engineer. > > > > > http://drrw.net/presentations/XMLWG-01-04/CAM%20Order%20Item%20example.xml > > > > No tricks required! > > > > Cheers, DW > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz> > > To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:52 PM > > Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements] > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]