Re: [regrep] Standards approval process

[BEDINI Ivan RD-BIZZ-CAE <ivan.bedini@francetelecom.com>]

Hi,
before to vote for this document I'd like to better understand his real
utility.
Actually we are working on UN/Cefact Registry specifications proposition
and we don't think that we will use the serialization proposed in this
document for several reasons.
For example it doesn't seem to be CCTS compliant and doesn't give us a
solution or a proposition on how we have to map the ccts components to
ebRIM.

the more recent experiences on CCTS and RR give us some better different
solutions, and so is it possible to update the document before to vote
for that ?

best regards,
ivan 


 

Le samedi 15 janvier 2005 à 10:56 -0500, David Webber (XML) a écrit :
> Farrukh,
> 
> I concur with that.   In our recent work we're finding at least
> one other way to approach this CCTS / RegRep- and I'm
> sure other people will modify and adapt this significantly
> as they get into really loading vocabularies into
> registry - and more - and finding the speed bumps and
> comptability issues, etc.  Just for starters - going in an
> out of Excel spreadsheet to XML and RegRep is
> one challenge - given the design teams are currently
> using Excel as their front door.
> 
> I'd suggest this as a informative notes report - would work
> well at this point.  I'm not sure any of know what the real
> answers are - but its clear we will be working much on
> this is 2005 - including all the CEFACT project work -
> and they also may have yet another valid approach too
> (I see at least two other team there working this stuff).
> 
> At the end of the day - this probably devolves down to
> a core set of interoperable behaviours around a common
> set of components in two or three different XML layouts
> and technqiues - depending on what the problem domain
> is and the audience and their preferred toolsets.
> 
> We certainly do not want to paint ourselves into a corner
> too early here.
> 
> Thanks, DW
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
> To: "Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>
> Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Standards approval process
> 
> 
> > Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
> >
> > >Below is the OASIS standards approval process.  I felt everyone should
> > >be familiar with this process as we continue reviewing the RIM and RS v.
> > >3.0 specs with the intent to move them forward through the OASIS
> > >Standards process.
> > >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standards_approval
> > >
> > >
> > I am embarrased to say that I opened this document only now before my
> > planned YES vote.
> >
> > I noticed that it uses the term "best practices paper" to refer to the
> > paper. I think this would be
> > sending a confusing message. At the risk of being a PITA may I suggest a
> > quick update that
> > replaces "best practices pare" with "report" and we then vote to approve
> > that version?
> >
> > Sorry to have to bother Duane with a request for another update.
> >
> > If other team members think it is OK as is then I will go along. Thoughts?
> >
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>