We need to continue to work through this comments
document so we can send it next week. Farrukh, do you have an updated
version? We have a few sections left; do we need a short telecon, or can
we do via e-mail? Or, we can complete this at our next meeting on the 30th
so I can send it out that day.
Kathryn Breininger
Manager, Release & Delivery Services
CIMS - Center for Information Management
Services
MC 62-LC
425-965-0242 desk
425-512-4281 cell
425-237-4582 fax
Team here are my revised comments on this spec...
Overall,
it is a very well put together spec. The way to think of ISO
11179 is that
it describes a registry/repository in even more abstract
terms than ebXML
RegRep. In the ideal world ebXML RegRep standard simply
provides a concrete
binding for ISO 11179.
However, in the real world the specs have been done by
different people
with limited alignment. Historically, we have taken 11179
specs as input
and tried to align with them as best as possible.
Complicating things
are other competing specs like ISO 19135 for
Registration Procedures.
I think is is a very commendable thing that the
11179 fold and
specifically Bruce Bargmeyer have taken the time to get our
input. We
should ask for their input in our latest specs as well. The
comments
below are based on a very quick review.
- 5.1.3 Contact, 5.1.5 Individual: Person <=> Contact model
mistmatches
- Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class that Organization
and Person extend
- Add address, phone etc. to Party
- Take away title from Person and instead make it an attribute of
association with an organization (titles or roles are in the context of a
relationship with some organization)
- 5.1.14 Registration_Authority_Identifier: Why have separate attribute for
registration_authority_identifier. Better to representregistration_authority
via an Organization and use orgs identifier
- 6.1.2.2 Scoped_Identifier: Suggest defining a URN naming scheme instead of
current spec
- 6.1.2.4 Slot: Thanks for the good alignment here
- 6.2 Designation and Definition region: This clause is very difficult to
follow. Its not clear what a Designatable_Item is. Suggets providing examples
and clearer definition
- 7.1 Registration metamodel region: This section should be aligned with ISO
19135
- 7.1.2 Registration Record, Stewardship Record, Submission_Record: RegRep
TC needs to see if these are relevant to our Registration Procedures work
- 7.1.6.1 attachment: This is so much better a name than RepositoryItem
(sigh: why did we not think of it)
- 8.1 8.1 Concept System region: ClassificationScheme <=>
Concept_System, ClassificationNode <=> Concept is another terminology
mis-alignment. Perhaps that is OK since 11179 is meant to be more generic than
ebXML RegRep
- 8.1.2.3 Assertion: Need more examples or clearer description of how
Assertions play a role in a concept system
- 8.1.2.4.1 Description of Relation: Need more examples or clearer
description of how Relations play a role in a concept system
- 8.2.2 Classes in the Classification region:Good alignment in
Classification region
- 9 Binary_Relations Package: This fuctionality needs to be studied for
relevance in ebXML RegRep
- 10 Data Description Package: This fuctionality needs to be included in a
future version of ebXML RegRep
- 10.4 Measurement region: This fuctionality needs to be included in a
future version of ebXML RegRep
- Does the spec have something analogous to ebXML RegRep RegistryPackage? If
not consider adding it
- There does not seem to be anything analogous to RegRep
InternationalString/LocalizedString or how to do internationalization of
content. For an international standard this is important to include. Consider
aligning with RegRep
- I was unable to find a place in the spec where Association support and
Association metamodel was described. Did anyone else find it?
- Is there a comments list where we can send any future comments?
- What public mailing lists can one signup to to stay informed of progress
of the spec?
Thanks again to Bruce and 11179 team for soliciting
our inputs.
Lets discuss these comments later today in our meeting. --
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
4CA074FFE64C114B9DEC89701310DCF2090CAD3D@XCH-NW-1V2.nw.nos.boeing.com
type="cite">
Please note: this is one agenda item I want to be
sure we have time to discuss, so will be placing it at the top of our agenda.
Please review materials (see below) prior t o our
meeting.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this
mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php