[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Core Components - Revisited
Thanks Nikola - I like your term "CCTS instantiation model" - that is what the UN/CEFACT ATG group is working on. For [1], you wrote: <Quote1> [1] CCTS abstract model -> RIM This is what I think Joe is referring to as "RIM binding". I'd say this could be sufficient. Subteam certainly shouldn't attempt this: </Quote1> Did you mean to say "Subteam certainly SHOULD attempt this"? You also wrote "shouldn't" for [2], so I thought that at least one of the these should be "should" (pardon the tricky English!) For [3], you wrote: [3] CCTS instantiation models -> RIM <Quote2> I thought that subteam might need to address [3], but I see that this is not necessary, because implementations of [3] would (should) be constrained by [1]. </Quote2> I agree - in terms of a schema and XML instance document (unrelated to this, but just for example purposes), we can think of [1] as the schema and [2] as the XML instance document that must conform to [1]. Thanks, Joe Nikola wrote: > > <Joe> > Thanks Farrukh. Would you be willing to elaborate on one point: > > <Quote> > Experience with many pilots suggests that the best approach is to have > an XML format for CCTS content with ebRIM format for CCTS metdata. So I > would reccomend both XML serialization format (outside of binding) and > binding to ebRIM metadata. > </Quote> > > It would be very helpful. > </Joe> > > (NB: I might misinterpret some CC related facts): > > I'd like to enumerate some steps that might help with defining the scope. > One can assume that this is possible: > > [1] CCTS abstract model -> RIM > > This is what I think Joe is referring to as "RIM binding". I'd say this > could be sufficient. Subteam certainly shouldn't attempt this: > > [2] CCTS abstract model -> CCTS instantiation models > > Here I assume that something like UBL would be a member of "CCTS > instantiation models". > > And, subteam doesn't need to address this: > > [3] CCTS instantiation models -> RIM > > I thought that subteam might need to address [3], but I see that this is not > necessary, because implementations of [3] would (should) be constrained by > [1]. > > Regards, > Nikola
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]