RE: [regrep-cc-review] Moving Forward (RIM-based vs. XML Serialization)

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Joe,

I basically agreeing here - but I would note that I do not think
the RIM v XML-serialization is my sense here - I would argue
that we use both of these in tandem as needed - leading with
the RIM approach to cover off as much as we can there, and
supplementing that with limited XML-serialization as needed,
and particularly to mitigate changes to the RIM itself.

This gets us the best of both worlds - and also - as you note,
gives people a clear model to follow.  

I think the BPSS thing is a red-herring and we should not let
that distract us here.  

The crux of the CCTS request is that the registry should
support certain special behaviours that they deem required 
for their use of registry in support of CCTS.   As such they
may not be unique - but certainly they represent a different
class of registry user compared to the norm who use 
the provided mechanisms as is.

Thanks, DW.
=========================================================
Message text written by "Breininger, Kathryn R"
>Our first week has been great - we've brought a lot of critical issues
out in the open. Our biggest issue has been the general approach of Core
Component representation - what I call "RIM-based vs. XML
Serialization".

To date, there have been very strong arguments on both sides. I have
read and internalized all postings, and I definitely have a sense that
the majority of the group favors a RIM-based approach, where we attempt
to map the CCTS Section 7 attributes to the existing RIM, and use the
RIM extensibility mechanism (slots) to accomodate those attributes that
could not be cleanly mapped.

** Please let me know if you disagree with this sense. **
<