[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts
I like all of those ideas! The only thing that skewes the picture is the timing - implementing this excellent approach now may (or would most likely) cause a delay on the UN/CEFACT side in the finalization of the CC spec. I personally am not so sure that this would fly on the other side. However, I still do believe that we should have been consulted from the get-go (I know I'm sounding like a broken record!). - Joe Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > ><Snip> > >That should be the job of the > >Domain specific TC (e.g. CCTS). > >The CC Review subcommittee should offer its services to act in a > >consulting role to the CCTS team but must not be the owner of such a > >specification. > ></Snip> > > > >That sounds like a very interesting model - and I agree very much with > >this concept. The sense that I have gotten from the CCTS folks in the > >past is that they are looking to us to define this, and (at least at > >that time) did not have any interest in taking it on themselves, even if > >we were to act in a consulting role. How can we overcome that? > > > We can offer to show them the way and to be right behind them every step > of the way. But ultimately they have to lead the way. What do you think > of the practicality of the following specific tactics: > > -CCTS create a "ebXML Registry Binding sub-committee" chartered with > defining the "CCTS binding to ebXML Registry" > > -ebXMl Registry TC offer a liaison to CCTS "ebXML Registry Binding > sub-committee" that is recognized by that group. > > -The liaison helps "ebXML Registry Binding sub-committee" throughout the > definition of the "CCTS binding to ebXML Registry" all the way until its > approval by CCTS team. The "ebXML Registry Binding sub-committee" and > the liaison may work out the details of who does how much heavy lifting. > > In the end the "CCTS binding to ebXML Registry" is approved as a CCTS > specification or sub-specification. > > In case anyone is wondering "OK then what is the role of the ebXML > Registry CC Review subcommittee? Well their role IMO is to review CCTS > work and the "ebXML Registry Binding sub-committee" work and determine > if there is any CCTS requirements that we should address generically in > ebXML Registry specifications. ANd it is highly likely that a member of > that team would be the liaison to the "ebXML Registry Binding > sub-committee" of CCTS. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > > > > > >- Joe > > > >Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > > > > >>Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>[Greetings from Snow-Pummeled Washington D.C.!] > >>> > >>>It appears to me that we could have 3 separate "specs" (using term > >>>loosely) growing out of the CC spec: > >>> > >>>(1) ebXML Registry Representation of Core Components (and their > >>>associated entities) > >>>(2) Context/Assembly > >>>(3) XML Serialization > >>> > >>>It also seems that (1) would be done within our TC (the CC Review > >>>subcommittee), but (2) and (3) might be done elsewhere (another TC or > >>>within another existing TC). > >>> > >>>Does that sound correct? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Hi Joe, > >> > >>While I support the good work of CCTS 100%, I feel strongly that our TC > >>should not be specifying the binding of any Domain specific model (e.g. > >>CC) to ebXML Registry representation. That should be the job of the > >>Domain specific TC (e.g. CCTS). > >>The CC Review subcommittee should offer its services to act in a > >>consulting role to the CCTS team but must not be the owner of such a > >>specification. > >> > >>The simple criteria I would propose for making such decisions is to > >>replace CC with Foo where Foo is some domain specific model (e.g. Health > >>Level 7, OGC, OAG etc.) and ask the question what would we do in that > >>situation. > >> > >>Would we have the HL7 or OGC binding to ebXML Registry be owned and > >>defined a an ebXML Registry TC subcommittee? I should hope not. So why > >>would we need to have an ebXMl Registry TC own / define the mapping for CC? > >> > >>-- > >>Regards, > >>Farrukh > >> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > >> > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Attachment:
Chiusano_Joseph.vcf
Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC