OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas


Lee,
 
Ease of implementation is key.  That is why we have put together all the tools in CAM for NIEM IEPDs.
 
This has taken an 800 hour IEPD process and made it 80 hours - including ramp up time.
 
What I am envisioning for EDXL however is that creating a profile using CAM should take one hour or less - including downloading CAM and installing.
 
I'll put together some briefing slides to illustrate - along with samples.  We really can show people how to save potentially hundreds of hours of implementation time.
 
This week though I'm busy finishing testing on the new release of CAM 1.7.1 - so it will next week sometime.

Thanks, DW
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs.
Released Schemas
From: "Lee Tincher" <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
Date: Sun, March 14, 2010 8:02 am
To: "'Ron Lake'" <rlake@galdosinc.com>, "'Ram Kumar'"
<kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Gary Ham'" <gham@grandpaham.com>, "'David RR Webber (XML)'"
<david@drrw.info>, <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"'Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL'" <Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com>,
"'McGarry,Donald P.'" <dmcgarry@mitre.org>

All,
 
While I agree with the concepts I would urge you to be very careful here.  Gary Ham taught me many years ago the “A Standard Ai’nt a Standard if it isn’t used”.  In his white paper he focuses on ease of implementation as a key issue.  What you are describing below is a series of best practices that should be recommendations from the Adoption Committee.  To consider this as part of the guidance of using the standard will make many developers just turn away from it and the result will be less implementation – thus less interoperability.
 
Profiles are nothing more than further restraints and element definition enhancements/restrictions to the approved standard that need to be understood by two or more exchange partners.  By ensuring that the “Profile” validates against the original schema than any other entity that uses complete/original Standard Schema can consume it….sharing your “further restrained” schema may be desirable from an implementation standpoint, but that depends on your intended use – and we cannot assume that everyone intends to use profiles exactly as we do….in many cases a profile will be shared between only 2 exchange partners and no one else needs to know the restrictions enforced by the profile….
 
Thanks,
Lee
 
The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think - rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men.  ~Bill Beattie
 
From: Ron Lake [mailto:rlake@galdosinc.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:39 AM
To: Ram Kumar
Cc: Gary Ham; David RR Webber (XML); Lee Tincher; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL; McGarry,Donald P.
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
 
Here here!! 
 
I would go farther and state that we need registries in support of this interoperability governance - registries that manage schemas,  code lists, schema documentation etc.  Simply posting schemas on a web site (and claiming this is a registry) is NOT sufficient and it will not work.
 
Cheers

Ron
 

From: Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: Sun 3/14/2010 12:23 AM
To: Ron Lake
Cc: Gary Ham; David RR Webber (XML); Lee Tincher; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL; McGarry,Donald P.
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas

If we want to achieve interoperability, two things are required:
1. Interoperability of data - schemas are required
2. Guidelines on how the schemas should be used (what is optional, what is not, what code lists to use, etc) to enable interoperability. This will help the interoperating parties to use these guidelines to ensure consistent implementation of the schemas. - This is part of interoperability governance
 
Therefore, using a set of schemas and expecting systems implementing the schemas without any guidelines to ensure consistent implementation, to interoperate is virtually impossible.
 
xPIL and other CIQ artifacts have been designed to be application independent and vertical industry independent, and importantly global (ability to handle 240+ country addresses and many name formats), it is up to the users using these schemas to ensure that they define proper guidelines to customise these schemas for implementation to enable interoperability.
Regards,
 
Ram
Chair, OASIS CIQ TC
On 14 March 2010 19:06, Ron Lake <rlake@galdosinc.com> wrote:
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]