[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [regrep] Re: Core Components Specifications
> Message text written by Sandy Klausner > >I've heard > arguments for both UML and XML, both of which do not appear to adequately > address the.... >>>>>>>>>> STOP!!!! THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS OF THE SAME THING!!!!! Please at least acknowledge this. Others see this. Continuing along this line of thinking is counter productive. Farrukh wrote: >Gentle folks, >I cannot believe that we are debating between UML and XML. >XML is a syntax while UML is a higher level thing to define an Object Oriented >Model. UML can and has used XML to express its model. >>>>>>>>>> Words of wisedom! The question that needs to be answered is still posed: "When you resolve a Registry reference to a Core Component, what do you find?" I made a list of the requirements that Architecture has for this artifact in a previous thread. This question HAS to be answered before the Core Components can be implemented. If they are not implemented, they do not become a standard under UN/CEACT rules. Therefore, I humbly request that we have some sensible debate over this and arrive at an answer. The ideas hinted at by Matt and Farrukh are very good. However, I would like to hear an *official* answer from the CC team. We need the answer before we can implement anything. Original message is reposted below: *******Request for Comments******* The ebXML Registry contains an <ObjectReg> element in the Regsitry XML Schema which points at the RegistryObject. What is the <ObjectRef> Element going to point at when it references a Core Component? I aks this question becuase this needs to be answered BEFORE core components can be implemented. <QuantumJumpForwardInLogic> Since the UN/CEFACT approval process calls for two independant implementations, this question must be answered and in the CC Specification. </QuantumJumpForwardInLogic>. To solve this question, I advocate that we first define all the requirements for the answer. Here is a starter list compiled from the comments on this thread so far (from a programmatic AND business level): 1. Whatever the Registry references must not be bound to only being expressed in one single syntax however, it MUST be expressed in at least ONE syntax that is normalized. Otherwise, implementors will not know how to parse the Core Component to present representations fo it to other system actors, whether they be machine or human. 2. It should probably contain easily recognizable, traversable links to the UML model representation of the Core Component AND have expandable linking abilities to be capable of displaying itself in other formats (in case something eventually supercedes UML, XML et al as per Lisa S's comments). I would advocate that the linking mechanism be standardized. 3. It should be parsable by applications in a standardized manner. This is to avoid data serialization errors like misinterpretting a signed integer as an unsigned interger. 4. It should be easy to transform it via an application to other syntax specific representations of the same object for re-use. 5. It should ideally be either human parsable (readable) or it should be easy to build an application to present a human being a link to a human understandable representation of the Core Component (ie - text or UML). These represent a good start to the requirements for this yet to be determined artifact. Duane Nickull -- CTO, XML Global Technologies **************************** Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/ ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC