[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Notes from conference call - 3/14
Hello All, The two attached files contain notes (minutes?) from yesterday's conference call and the Issues Log that was generated (by Farrukh) as a result of the discussion. The Issues Log is now a living document that we should be adding/revising as we go along. Farrukh will maintain the Issues Log. Please let me know if I need to make changes to the notes. --lisaTitle: Notes from ebXML Registry/Repository Team Conference Call – March 14,
Notes from ebXML Registry/Repository Team Conference Call – March 14, 1:00 – 3:30 (Eastern Time) Attendees: Lisa Carnahan, NIST Len Gallagher, NIST Scott Hinkleman, IBM Farrukh Najmi, Sun Nikola Stojanovic, Encoda Systems The attendees
discussed the following issues that were prepared and distributed by Farrukh
Najmi in his email http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200103/msg00064.html . Many of the items
are marked ‘no action item was assigned at this time.’ This phrase implies that reasonable action
cannot be taken on this topic with resolution and document changes before the
March 19th submission deadline to the QR team. The attached issues log refers to the phrase
as ‘post-QR’. RIM ------------ -Do we need a
Contact attribute in AuditableIdentity? There was consensus
that Contact be merged with the AuditableIdentity . The name of the new interface was undecided. No action item was assigned at this time. -We should make
Classification a sibling of Association and remove the hard wired
attributed like associationType, role, etc. Consensus
agreed. Farrukh will make the change in
next RIM revision. -Define
contraints in RIM interfaces like NOT NULL There was consensus
that this needs to be addressed in the RIM and that more discussion is
needed. No action item was assigned at
this time. -Define max
lengths on String attributes in RIM somehow There was consensus
that this is necessary. Examples in
other specifications (e.g. the Learning Object Metamodel from the IMS Global
Learning Consortium) were mentioned. No
action item was assigned at this time. -Need to add
slotType attribute to slot so we can define speced slot types for light
weight classification etc. There was consensus
to add the slotType attribute. l18N was
defined as one of the first defined uses.
Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM revision. -Change
enumeration design so it is a registered and required ClassificationScheme There was consensus
to allow enumerated type values to be defined as a classification scheme. This provides the extensibility needed by
various communities in defining their own enumeration values. Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM
version. -Need to address
resolvability of Content URI There was
consensus that the following concept be added to the RIM: “The content URI is
guaranteed resolvable. The Registration
Authority is responsible for ensuring that the content URL is resolvable. “ Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM
version. RS General ------------ -PR1: Need
careful review of the DTD and improved comments within it. There was consensus
that semantic rules should be added for the elements in the DTD. There was discussion regarding the placement
of the semantic rules (as comments in the DTD or as document text) with no
consensus regarding placement. No action item was assigned at this time. -PR1: Address the
issue of version in every request response message. Get rid of it. There was consensus
to eliminate Version (meaning registry version (i.e., specification version))
from every request and response message.
Version should be obtainable from the CPP. Further, it should be an error if the version is
unidentifiable. -PR1: Need
registry version in RegistryProfile See Previous issue. -PR2: Need
examples of select DTD elements (e.g. SubmitObjectsRequest) There was consensus
that the use of examples in the document would be helpful. However no action
item was assigned. From this discussion
a new issue was raised. New issue:
Should the same DTD be used for XML coming in and XML going out (e.g., same DTD
for extrinsic objects being registered and returned?) Initial agreement was not reached on this issue. Additional discussion will take place after
the March 19 submission. -PR3: Need an NLS
example? There was
consensus that an NLS example using the Slots functionality would be useful to
show both concepts. An action item was
not assigned at this time. RS Filter Query ---------------- -PR1: DTD element
and attribute names sometime do not match RIM. Some examples are
RegistryPakage There was consensus
that Package be changed to RegistryPackage.
Additionally folks agreed to watch for any additional inconsistencies
and send them to Farrukh. -PR1: We need to
align the error handling between main DTD (ebXMLError) and FilterQuery
dtd There was consensus
that the error handling between the main DTD and the FilterQuery.dtd should be
aligned. Additionally, our ebXMLError
needs to be in sync with the new TRP ebXMLError. No action item was assigned at this time. -PR1: There is
confusion over whether we decided ResponsibleOrg was in or out for phase
1. RIM does nothave it but 8.2 does There was consensus
that the ResponsibleOrg needs to be added to the RIM. However, there was not consensus in its placement, nor the
immediate impact of its placement. No
action item was assigned at this time. -PR1: Need at
least 1 example of FilterQuery that shows Clause syntax in the example
rather than the shorthand. Need to clarify that the rest of the examples will
use short hand syntax for brevity This has been done
by Scott Hinkleman. -PR2: xxReference
elements seem to provide a alternate reference mechanism from
ObjectRef element in main DTD. One solution may be to rename
xxReference to xxView and think of them as light weight views of the actual RIM
type. There was consensus
that xxReference should be changed to xxView.
-PR2: Should we
move GetRegistryEntry and GetRepositoryItem under FilterQuery in
DTD? (I think) there was
consensus to agree to do this. -PR2: DTD in
appendix Vs. DTD in main body inconsistency There was much
discussion regarding this. There was
consensus that the main DTD (in the Appendix) will include a comment that
stating that ‘the FilteredQuery DTD from Section 8.2.? is inserted here.’ -PR3: We are
missing ability to filter Organization by PostalAddress. For example cant
find all Organization in Boston. Is this phase 2? There was
consensus to add ‘PostalAddress’ to the rules 7 and 8 of section 8.2.9. Thus the phrases are ‘Organization and
PostalAddress UML classes’ (rule 7) and ‘Contact and PostalAddress UML
classes’. |
Lisa Carnahan National Institute of Standards and Technology Information Technology Laboratory 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 301-975-3362 voice 301-948-6213 fax lisa.carnahan@nist.gov
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC