RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

["CHIUSANO, Joseph" <JCHIUSANO@lmi.org>]

Title: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

Exactly - hence the stretching part I mentioned. :)

 

**************************************************************************
  Joseph M. Chiusano
  Logistics Management Institute
  2000 Corporate Ridge
  McLean, VA 22102
  Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
  Tel: 571.633.7722
**************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Fuger, Sally [mailto:sfuger@aiag.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:01 PM
To: CHIUSANO, Joseph; David RR Webber - XMLGlobal
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); Nikola
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

Okay, but the classes you are referring to in the RIM are related only to the submitting and/or responsible organization. They are not used as metadata for an object in a repository.

-----Original Message-----
From: CHIUSANO, Joseph [mailto:JCHIUSANO@lmi.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:59 PM
To: Fuger, Sally; CHIUSANO, Joseph; David RR Webber - XMLGlobal
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); Nikola
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

Sally,

 

You've got it all correctly - we're just stretching the norm a bit here.  We're discussing using data (an instance of a UBL transaction, for example) to create metadata in the registry (an instance of object class Organization, for example).  More specifically, we're focusing on those cases where a transaction from a vocabulary (such as UBL) might have an equivalent object class in our RIM. 

 

So for example, an instance of a transaction from a vocabulary that contained Organization information could be used to create an instance of object class Organization in the registry.

 

Hope that helps,

Joe

**************************************************************************
  Joseph M. Chiusano
  Logistics Management Institute
  2000 Corporate Ridge
  McLean, VA 22102
  Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
  Tel: 571.633.7722
**************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Fuger, Sally [mailto:sfuger@aiag.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:48 PM
To: CHIUSANO, Joseph; David RR Webber - XMLGlobal
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); Nikola
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

Maybe I'm just confused and not following this discussion accurately, but once again, I fear we are confusing registry content with the data registered. Core Components and UBL vocabulary items, if someone chooses to register them, fall into the latter category. Only their metadata goes in the registry. Tell me if I've got it all backwards.

 

Sally

-----Original Message-----
From: CHIUSANO, Joseph [mailto:JCHIUSANO@lmi.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:45 PM
To: 'David RR Webber - XMLGlobal'; CHIUSANO, Joseph
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); 'Nikola'
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

David, 

Thanks for your thoughts - I always appreciate and value your insight.

I wonder if the requirements of the 2 representations of "Organization" are vastly different, due to their purposes.  For a vocabulary such as UBL, there may be a need to identify an Organization to a finer level of detail then a registry.  A registry may require only very high-level information (as our RIM does, with Address, Parent, Primary Contact, and Phone #'s), while in a transactional environment it may be required to exchange more detailed Organizational information between parties (such as the countries in whicih the organization does business, etc.).

Because of its purpose, the CIQ information is (as you know) very fine-grained.  I would not imagine that in a registry, one would want/need to include such fine-grained name and address information (it might be overkill).

Regards,
Joe

> **************************************************************************
>   Joseph M. Chiusano
>   Logistics Management Institute
>   2000 Corporate Ridge
>   McLean, VA 22102
>   Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
>   Tel: 571.633.7722
> **************************************************************************
>

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber - XMLGlobal [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:31 PM
To: CHIUSANO, Joseph
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); 'Nikola'
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

Message text written by "CHIUSANO, Joseph"
>
Ah, I see...so, for instance, if the UBL representation of Organization and
the registry class for organization matched, the registry could potentially
accept a UBL transaction containing Organization information as a means to
create an instance of an Organization class within the registry, thereby
alleviating the need for a user to enter this information.  The same could
apply for class PostalAddress, class PersonName, etc.
<<<<<<<<<<

Joe,

Forgive me for saying this - it appears to be the tail wagging the dog.

UBL should be following the Registry organization definitions, and
if they have issues with those - should be making a proposal to
Registry on it.

Also - OASIS CIQ TC is creating core component definitions of
address, person and organization - so really that again would
be where one would expect this detail to harmonize - since that
is the exact scope for the CIQ work in the first place!

Since the OASIS CIQ has participation from USPS, USGov and
other groups reviewing such standards I suggest they definately
represent a strong authority on such definitions.

I'm not sure what policy UBL has - but one would expect them
to defer such technical matters to existing domain groups -
and especially when the domain group happens to be an
OASIS TC!

Cheers, DW.