Re: [egov-registry] Proof of Concept

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Paul:

Thanks for creating the checklist of things to be done.
I think you have identified all that could be done via the usual volunteer
effort.

It would be helpful if you could attach some target dates to the tasks and
expand on the statement ' The third of these bullets requires the writing
of a new standard.'

cheers

carl

<quote who="Paul Spencer">
> This project has now been running for a while. In order to make sure we
> allow for all possibilities, we have ranged quite widely in what we are
> looking at. I feel the time has come to refocus and ensure we deliver the
> main requirements in a short period.
>
> Three important points from the eGov TC purpose:
>
> * Provide a forum for Governments internationally to voice their needs and
> requirements with respect to XML-based standards which can be handed off
> to
> relevant OASIS TCs
>
> * Provide a mechanism for the creation of best practice documents
>
> * Promote the adoption of OASIS specs/standards within Governments
>
> This project supports all three. We are allowing Governments to state
> their
> needs, we are promoting the ebXML registry and possibly other OASIS
> specifications, and we will deliver best practice for the use of
> registries
> for storing schemas and components. So we are on target there.
>
> The aims of the project are:
>
> * To show that the ebXML registry/repository is a suitable platform for
> e-Government schema management
>
> * To build a demonstration registry
>
> * To create best practice for its use
>
> Note that the aim is schema management. Although a registry can be used
> for
> many other purposes, the aims of this project have always been around the
> registering, storage and discovery of schema documents, schema components
> and associated metadata, and the assembly of schema components into
> documents.
>
> We have identified several activities required to achieve these aims:
>
> * Provide guidance on the mapping of metadata to the ebRIM. This includes
> (possibly as a second phase) deciding between direct mapping and mapping
> via
> the CCRIM. So far, it has resulted in a requested change to the ebRIM.
> Once
> the decision is made on that, the work can be completed quite easily.
>
> * The ebXML registry TC is working on the CCRIM to ebRIM mapping, so we
> will
> rely on their work.
>
> * We need a mapping of schema components to the ebRIM.
>
> * We need to look at schema assembly. I am not yet convinced that CAM is
> the
> right approach to this, but I am equally not convinced that it is not.
>
> * We need a working registry.
>
> Have I left anything out?
>
> The third of these bullets requires the writing of a new standard. Should
> we
> draft this, keeping the ebXML Registry TC informed, or should we stick to
> the aims of our TC and pass it over to them to work on? What sort of
> priority would they give it? I suspect the best compromise is for us to
> lead
> it, but work as a joint team.
>
> Currently, the document we have drafted is a combination of other
> documents.
> I propose to re-write this based on the content of this email. This will
> mean cutting some of the current material, but I think that is necessary
> to
> achieve the focus we need.
>
> I would also like to kick off the assembly part of the project.
>
> I look forward to some lively discussion over the next few days, then
> moving
> the project forward in an agreed direction.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Spencer
> Director
> Boynings Consulting Ltd
> http://www.boynings.co.uk
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi