[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Core Components and XML Serialization - Which Approach?
I believe so - ebRS v2.35, line 5116 (p.149): <Quote> The following rules govern how a registry joins a federation: · Each registry must have exactly one Registry instance within that registry for which it is a home. The Registry instance is owned by the RegistryOperator and may be placed in the registry using any operator specific means. The Registry instance must never change its home registry. </Quote> Joe Duane Nickull wrote: > > One item that needs to be possibly added is a "home" localtion for each > Registry Object. Each object could have an associated value of its' > home location and a psuedo "refresh from home location" attribute to > ensure that content is fresh, yet it is unnecessary to poll the home > address looking for updates in a manner that uses resources unwisely. > > I don't know if the Registry team has looked at this as part of the > federated approach. > > Duane > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > Thanks Duane - that's the exact kind of feedback I was looking for. > > > > Sounds like this is covered in v3.0 by the Federated Registries Object > > Replication feature - from ebRS v2.35, lin 5188 (p.151): > > > > <Quote> > > Any Submitting Organization can create a replica by using the standard > > SubmitObjectsRequest. > > ... > > Creating a local replica requires the destination registry to read the > > state of the remote object from the source registry and then create a > > local replica of the remote object. > > </Quote> > > > > Joe > > > > Duane Nickull wrote: > > > >>Joseph: > >> > >>Matt MacKenzie, David Webber and I implemented this stuff 2 years ago > >>and out that each has merits. The problem you have identified is that > >>once a CC or BIE is copied, serialized and transmitted to a remote > >>location, it looses its' RIM metadata (context). That includes > >>classifications, associations etc. Therefore, if CC's and BIE's are to > >>be stored in a registry, users need to either copy the appropirate RIM > >>data with it, or duplicate the RIM data in the Registry Objects itself > >>(an un-elegant solution IMHO). > >> > >>IN the Wrox book 'Professonal ebXML Foundations" a chapter was written > >>identifying this problem and a solution. I still believe the solution > >>lies somewhere ins a hybrid approach. This could involve wrapping the > >>actual Registry Object with a RIM Metadata envelope before it is > >>serlialized and transmitted. > >> > >>Duane Nickull > >> > >>Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> > >>>All, > >>> > >>>I've been thinking more about this issue...that is, given a set of > >>>metadata attributes (such as those specified in the Core Components > >>>spec), which should be part of the RIM (through a binding) and which > >>>should be "pushed down" into the contents - i.e. as a "wrapper" for the > >>>core component or associated entity. > >>> > >>>For example, lets say we need to provide for the following metadata for > >>>a Core Component (this is all hypothetical): > >>> > >>>- Object Type (Basic Core Component (BCC), Basic Business Information > >>>Entity (BBIE), etc.) > >>>- Creation Date > >>> > >>>And let's say the Core Component contained "Contact Information" for an > >>>individual. In general, there are 2 approaches to representing this > >>>metadata (let's say for simplicity that you cannot split the metadata up > >>>- that is, you must include all metadata in one approach): > >>> > >>>(1) As part of serialization > >>>(2) As part of RIM > >>> > >>>Approach #1 would look as follows (note "CoreComponentMetadata" header, > >>>with data in "CoreComponentData" element): > >>> > >>><CoreComponent> > >>> <CoreComponentMetadata> > >>> <ObjectType>BCC</ObjectType> > >>> <CreationDate>2003-01-03</CreationDate> > >>> </CoreComponentMetadata> > >>> <CoreComponentData> > >>> <ContactInformation> > >>> <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName> > >>> ...more elements here... > >>> </ContactInformation> > >>> </CoreComponentData> > >>></CoreComponent> > >>> > >>>Approach #2 would look as follows: > >>> > >>>- ObjectType and CreationDate are RIM attributes > >>>- Serialization looks as follows (note no "CoreComponentMetadata" > >>>element): > >>> > >>><CoreComponent> > >>> <CoreComponentData> > >>> <ContactInformation> > >>> <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName> > >>> ...more elements here... > >>> </ContactInformation> > >>> </CoreComponentData> > >>></CoreComponent> > >>> > >>>My question is: What are the distinct advantages and disadvantages to > >>>each of these approaches? And which previals (if any) as the most > >>>advantageous/preferred approach to representing Core Components and > >>>their associated entities? > >>> > >>>Looking forward to some great insight...Thanks! > >>> > >>>Joe > >> > >>-- > >>VP Strategic Relations, > >>Technologies Evangelist > >>XML Global Technologies > >>**************************** > >>ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/ > > > > -- > VP Strategic Relations, > Technologies Evangelist > XML Global Technologies > **************************** > ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]