[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [egov-registry] Proof of Concept
Paul: Thanks on the upcoming dates (please be kind :-}). Given the ebXMLRegistry effort focused on schema management may either feed requirements into the Version 3 specification or simply become a Technical Note for V2.5 - I suggest that this project should act as a pragamatic source of needs. cheers carl >> writing >> of a new standard. <quote who="Paul Spencer"> > Carl, > > I am planning to put some dates on the actions. > > The point about the need for a standard way to map schema components to > the > ebRIM came from you in our IM exchange the other day. I suspect this is > very > similar to the current CCRIM to ebRIM work that is being done in the > registry TC. I don't remember exactly what you said, but it included you > and > some others writing this mapping. > > Regards > > Paul > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com] >> Sent: 13 July 2004 14:43 >> To: Paul Spencer >> Cc: Egov-Registry >> Subject: Re: [egov-registry] Proof of Concept >> >> >> 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 > > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]