[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry
Chiusano Joseph wrote: ><Excerpt> > > >>However, not every thing captured in that summary necessarily belongs in >>ebXML Registry TC. I propose we focus our discussion first by defining >>what is *IN* vs *OUT* of scope for the CC registration/discovery >>discussion. >> >> ></Excerpt> > >Thanks, Farrukh. I'll take that one step further, in the interest of >keeping the discussion focused. Here is a list of (what I believe is) >"everything captured in the summary": > Here is my opinion on in/out of scope: > >- Registry metadata representations > above is in scope >- Defined binding to registry > above is in scope >- CAM > above is out of scope (this is not a reflection on its merits). It is in the scope of CAM TC or Content Assembly tools. >- Serialization format > above is out of scope (this is not a reflection on its merits). It is in the scope of CCTS team. Registry will handle whatever Seria;ization fromat they choose with more out-of-box features in case it is an XML format. > >Would you be willing to elaborate more on what you believe might be out >of scope? > Please state any differences of opinion from above scope boundaries. Thanks. > >- Joe > >Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > >>Rather than getting into a debate here about CAM, I believe that Content >>Assembly is outside the scope of ebXML Registry work and is the purview >>of content assembly tools. The only context I can think of for content >>assembly being discussed in ebXMl Registry TC is if there are any >>registry requirements necessary to support content assembly. >> >>Joe's summary is an great attempt at capturing the key points of view. >>However, not every thing captured in that summary necessarily belongs in >>ebXML Registry TC. I propose we focus our discussion first by defining >>what is *IN* vs *OUT* of scope for the CC registration/discovery >>discussion. Right now I feel we are meandering a bit too wide. >> >>Am I off base here? >> >>-- >>Regards, >>Farrukh >> >>David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote: >> >> >> >>>Dave, >>> >>>Note - UMM is nothing to do with CAM - since UMM is nothing >>>to do with XML - rather stating the obvious - like saying >>>fertilizer has nothing to do with Origami - but paper is made >>> >>> >>>from wood. >> >> >>>Anyway - since UMM has nothing to do with the topic of >>>CC serialization - I'm at a loss to understand why you >>>said any of this at all. >>> >>>CAM is about content assembly - and therefore works >>>with Registry, Webservices, EDI, OAG BODs, >>>RosettaNet, UBL et al - and can be used with ebXML as >>>well. >>> >>>The fact that we can use it for CC serialization >>>is perfectly acceptable - just like using XPath, >>>XQuery or any other XML technology component. >>> >>>Cheers, DW. >>>==================================================== >>>Message text written by Dave Welsh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Rest looks fine except for the CAM stuff, which >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>is / has not been part of the ebXML work nor is it in line with the >>>UN/CEFACT UMM approach on that subject..< >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC