OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [regrep] Core Components and version 3


I agree with Farrukh.

Again - there can be no binding from Registry to CC's until the Core 
Components are able to be expressed in electronic form.  There is no 
defined MIME type fo CC's.

The registry folks have cleverly built the V2.0 registry to be capable 
of handling all the use cases envisioned by CC's (Classification, 
association etc.)

Duane

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> First let me declare that I am very supportive of the CCTS work and very 
> much want ebXML Registry to bend over backwards to meet all requirements 
> for a CC Registry. CC registration and discovery was one of the main use 
> cases for ebXMl Registry since its origins and continue to be a dominant 
> use case.
> 
> That said, I agree with those that suggest we should not have a direct 
> binding to CCTS in ebXMl Registry V3.
> 
> My  reasons  are very simply that:
> 
> -I do not believe it is necessary to have a hard binding to CCTS in 
> order to meet their requirements. If there are requirements we are not 
> meeting then those requirements should be identified for being addressed 
> generically in V4 as a high priority. Today I believe ebXML Registry is 
> a generic registry and should not have special case handling for 
> specific types of content. If there is a good case for special handling 
> of CC then we can do this with careful consideration in V4.
> 
> -V3 is pretty much done at this point as far as scope is concerned. We 
> are now shooting for final iterations to get to a version that can be 
> put to TC vote for TC approval and later for OASIS standardization.
> 
> -CCTS is not an approved specification (someone made this point already) 
> and is therefor a moving target.
> 
> I believe we should work closely with the CCTS team to ensure that all 
> the CCTS requirements are met in V4. I believe that we meet most CCTS 
> requirements in V3 already. As a starting point I would like to propose 
> that:
> 
> -The CCTS team provide a document to our TC that identifies those 
> requirements of CC Registry that are not yet met by ebXML Registry V3.
> 
> -The CCTS team provide a liaison to ebXMl Registry TC to complement 
> Joe's role as ebXML Registry liaison to CCTS.
> 
> Please consider this opinion as constructive feedback to your suggestion 
> and not in any way a disagreement with the goals behind your suggestion.
> 


-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC