Re: [regrep] [TN Proposal] Mapping Business Information Models toebXML RegistryInformation Model (Was: [regrep] UN/CEFACT-ICG adopts freebXMLRegistry)

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

It is not my model.  It is the approved CCTS and UMM models. 

While jCam may do that, it requires certain details be available (the 
artifacts themselves) and that the designers can access certain 
information ourside of a registry environment.  As per UN/CEFACT's goals 
of electronic and non electronic business functionality, use of a 
registry is not always a pre-required component.

CAM does solve many of the problems, but ONLY if the information is 
present in the schema fragments it consumes.

Duane

David RR Webber wrote:

> Duane,
>
> I do not buy your model here.
>
> When you use jCAM and the noun definitions we are developing for SCM - 
> you head all these problems off at the pass.
>
> This was the lesson we learned from the CEFACT work - that you need to 
> separate the assembly mechanism from
> the noun representations.  We did that and moved on.
>
> The context is then managed and exposed by the CAM templates 
> themselves - and since they are simply XML instances
> you can query across them by UID ( *not* UUID) and garner the 
> associations and usage easily.
>
> And the noun definitions as defined are covering off the gaps that the 
> RIM and UMM models of CC are not accounting
> for.  Again - no giant surprise here - thats exactly what we deisnged 
> them for an have foreseen - the difference between
> the model layer and the implementation layer.
>
> Next up we will be working with the CEFACT folks on implementing this 
> in registry - so they should be able - as
> noted in the CEFACT meeting - be able to take the existing ISO 
> dictionary work - use the noun definition format - and
> store those semantics into registry.
>
> The jCAM engine can then read and apply those from the registry during 
> either validation of assembly of content or both.
>
> Thanks, DW
> ========================================================================== 
>
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>> A few special cases in CCTS mapping do not obviate the need for a 
>>> generic mapping TN that covers most domain specific mapping and 90%+ 
>>> of CCTS.
>>> What is the downside of doing a generic mapping document as you see it?
>>>
>> The downside is that there are dependencies on the storage for what 
>> must be serialized on the wire.  If that information is not stored as 
>> per the generic mapping, then the whole mechanism may not work.  Each 
>> artifact has different requirements for what must be serialized on 
>> the wire.  BIE's need to know what CC they came from, they also need 
>> to know the contexts (UUID for a set of contexts) that lead to their 
>> existence, CC's  do not need to know the BIE's spawned from them, yet 
>> do need to know there are BIE's and provide a mechanism 
>> (Classification tree?) for others to locate the BIE for a specific 
>> set of contexts.
>>
>> The set of contexts is also another huge problem.  There may be 8-10 
>> million.  One BIE may be used for a range of contexts (example - all 
>> french speaking countries and regions).  Just creating that many 
>> classifications will crash most registry implementations I know of or 
>> make them unmanageably slow.
>>
>> These are just a few of the potential problems.
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
>> of the OASIS TC), go to 
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>>
>>
>
>