Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

><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:
>  
>

Well I would like to propose that the ebXML Registry team adopt a 
similar position and

"definitely considers the definition of serialization
formats for Core Components outside of their purview"

to go a step further we should put as out-of-scope defining the serialization format for any type of content that is not defined by RIM. Which brings us back to the original question:

"Do we extend RIM to define CC intrinsically?" 

and after several days of debate I see no good argument supporting extending RIM to include CC instrinsically.



-- 
Regards,
Farrukh