[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
Joe, Please lets not re-open that whole argument! We already decided that we are best equipped to make this happen - with input from UBL, ATG, OAG, X12 and whoever else feels that they need to as it progresses. Of course - clarifying the requirements upfront is part of that process - once we are clear on the approach and the goals et al - then we can distro' those to these interested parties - and make sure we're not missing stuff they want covered. Then - as the technical work progresses - we can get input from these other groups too. Otherwise we end up with a dime-a-dozen ways for storing stuff in the registry as they all try and build out their own flavours and re-invent the wheel. They are probably going to end up doing that anyway - but at least we can give everyone an extensible base set of common stuff - and a coherent way of managing their extensions. <trip/> Ooops - just realized that's probably another <high-on-the-list/> requirement and goal!! Joe - do you want to start collating these?!? Thanks, DW. ========================================== Message text written by "CRAWFORD, Mark" > Actually, I would say that we leave the xml binding to un/cefact atg. Mark Crawford Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components ______ Logistics Management Institute 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805 (703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7481 Wireless (703) 655-4810 mcrawford@lmi.org http://www.lmi.org "Opportunity is what you make of it" -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> To: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com> CC: Nikola <nikola.stojanovic@acm.org>; regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org <regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wed Jun 04 15:27:18 2003 Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff! <Quote> I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your arguments make me agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our charter and more in the purvue of UBL TC. </Quote> So we should create a RIM binding, and leave any definition of an XML representation of Core Components to the UBL TC? <
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]