Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@mac-kenzie.net>]

I really don't understand this debate.  As far as I can see, some people 
want CCTS to be referenced in ebRS to instill confidence in certain 
communities that need positive affirmation that CC-in-registry is a 
supported use case.  Apart from that, all that we need is for CEFACT ATG 
to decide what the CC XML serialization is going to look like.  When 
they do, maybe some of us on Regrep will put together a content indexing 
stylesheet to support it and make the apropriate reference.

I don't advocate people calling any home cooked XML or CSV a core 
component in their XML registry...I think that will just muddy the waters.

-Matt

David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:

>Duane,
>
>The XML Global Registry interface already does all this - see
>the attached GIF - where the MIMEtype = XML, and 
>objecttype = corecomponent - and that using the V2.0 RIM.
>
>I do not see that we have to wait until someone officially
>says we can represent a corecomponent in XML - is
>there some kind of CEFACT CC police or something?!?
>
>If we build an XML representation that captures the 
>content detailed by the CCTS spec's - that seems
>to me to be admissible - if someone else wants to 
>use Excel, Access, or whatever else - that is their call.
>
>But obviously XML makes most sense - since the 
>registry can return that as a result query - whereas
>the other formats are binaries.
>
>Cheers, DW.
>=================================================================
>Message text written by Chiusano Joseph
>  
>
>>Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Since the Core Component can be expressed in an XML structure,
>>>you simply store the structure as any other XML, and handle it
>>>just as any other content.   However - under the MIMEtype = XML,
>>>we have the ability to do properties - and there we state
>>>      
>>>
>"CoreComponent"
>  
>
>>>(I believe we already have that implemented).
>>>      
>>>
>>Can be expressed in XML but has not yet been agreed to be expressed in
>>XML.  We need to do this ASAP IMHO.
>>
>>Currently,  there is not MIME type agreed to for expressing CC's or
>>    
>>
>BIEs'.
>  
>
>>Duane
>>    
>>
><
>
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature