RE: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[Monica Martin - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United States<Monica.Martin@sun.com>]

Dave,
Can you please provide some specific details or examples for:

"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.."

Thank you.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:08 AM
>> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Would anyone be willing to comment on the summary below (affirmative
>or
>> otherwise)?  Do we think that it accurately reflects where we stand
>> right now, from a high-level perspective?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>> 
>> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>> >
>> > I've taken a shot summarizing the various aspects of this discussion
>to
>> > date, to serve as a sort of "checkpoint" of where we are at.  Below
>I've
>> > listed 5 high-level topics (in no particular order) that I think
>have
>> > grown out of our excellent discussions here, and a very high-level
>> > snapshot of where we appear to be regarding that topic.
>> >
>> > I hope this information is helpful for all, and look forward to
>feedback
>> > on its accuracy.  I will be happy to update this summary as
>necessary so
>> > that we ensure that we capture the picture accurately for all.
>> >
>> > TOPIC #1 - Representation Within Registry (Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic):
>> >
>> > - Most seem to favor extrinsic representation, with a defined
>binding to
>> > the registry;
>> >
>> > - Question remains as to who would create such a binding - our TC,
>the
>> > CCTS Team, or a combination (us "consulting" to them and them having
>a
>> > liaison on our TC);
>> >
>> > - Can use Content Management mechanism and create a style sheet
>indexer
>> > for Core Component entities;
>> >
>> > TOPIC #2 - Context/Assembly:
>> >
>> > - Can be defined by the CAM TC, as this is their focus;
>> >
>> > TOPIC #3 - Serialization Format:
>> >
>> > - Can be defined by our TC(?), perhaps using CRI as a starting
>point;
>> >
>> > - David Webbers's "Registry Enabling of Business Metadata Semantics"
>> > presentation offers excellent concepts for serialization as well as
>> > context/assembly;
>> >
>> > - CCTS team would not need to be involved in the definition of the
>> > seralization format, because they define the syntax-neutral
>> > representation of Core Components, not the syntax-specific
>> > representations;
>> >
>> > TOPIC #4 - Core Components Specification:
>> >
>> > - It is possible that we may request updates to the Core Components
>> > specification based on our review of it;
>> >
>> > - We will need to decide how to communicate our requests to the CCTS
>> > Team and work with them toward a solution that is beneficial for all
>> > parties;
>> >
>> > TOPIC #5 - Timing:
>> >
>> > - Regardless of what Registry specification version this is included
>in,
>> > we believe it would take at least 4 months (probably closer to 6) to
>> > define the registry metadata representations (whether intrinsic or
>> > extrinsic), context/assembly, and serialization format.
>> >
>> > - It is still to be determined if this functionality will be
>included in
>> > the Registry V3 specs.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Joe
>> 
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>