Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Joe,

As a compromise here - I'd suggest that we decide that
we need some conformance around serialization to
aid interoperability - but that we put out a call for
submissions to the group - for suggestions on
the actual serialization.  We can then publish
the results of the submissions as either a
best-choice, or a selection, to the addendum.

That way we have a win-win - we can stay out of
the business of being serialization consultants
to the world - but at the same time work toward
helping people adopt common mechanisms
that we're able to sanity check will work 
correctly with the RIM.

Thanks, DW.
=====================================================
Message text written by Chiusano Joseph
><Excerpt>
>- 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.
</Excerpt>

The CCTS Team definitely considers the definition of serialization
formats for Core Components outside of their purview - they are looking
to others to do so (if they did so, it would mean defining
serializations not only for XML, but also for X12 EDI, EDIFACT MIG's,
and perhaps other formats as well).  From p.10 of CC spec:

"The Core Components approach described in this document is more
flexible than current standards in this area because the semantic
standardisation is done in a syntax-neutral fashion."
<