OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: FW: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3


April 30th will be fine for submitting our comments. Of course earlier would be better... :-)
 

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

 


From: Bargmeyer [mailto:bebargmeyer@lbl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Breininger, Kathryn R
Subject: RE: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3

Katharine,

 

Thanks for your work on making comments. April 30 will be fine. If you have some comments earlier, that would also help. It would give some time for getting them ready for discussion.

 

Thanks.

 

Bruce

 

----Sent by--------------------------

Bruce Bargmeyer

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

University of California

1 Cyclotron Road, MS 50B-2231A

Berkeley, California 94720

Tel: +1 510-495-2905

Fax: +1 510-486-4004

email: bebargmeyer@lbl.gov

 

From: Breininger, Kathryn R [mailto:kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:47 AM
To: BEBargmeyer@lbl.gov
Cc: Farrukh Najmi
Subject: RE: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3
Importance: High

 

Hi Bruce,

Please hold off on redistributing the draft comments. We are worked on these during our meeting, and have modified some. We will send you a complete set of comments that have been blessed by the whole group no later than April 30th, earlier if possible. Will that still fit within your time frame?

 

 

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

 

 


From: Bargmeyer [mailto:bebargmeyer@lbl.gov]
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Breininger, Kathryn R; 'Farrukh Najmi'
Subject: RE: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3

Kathryn and Farrukh,

 

I very much appreciate the comments you put together. I would like to distribute them to SC 32/WG 2. Can I do so? I’d like to post the comments so that people can see and comment on them.

 

Do the comments have the blessing of the whole group?

 

There is a discussion place for the SC 32/WG 2 standards that are under development. It is: issue.metadata-standards.org. Anyone can read the issues. You have to sign up to be able to post comments, but registration is open to all.

 

If you set the search there to 11179-3 ED3, you will get all of the issues and comments that are posted there. It is OK for issue management, but not so good for getting a comprehensive picture. Issue 422 – 450 are issues inviting comment on the current draft by clause. However, the prior issues cover individual items in more detail.

 

If you want, I can ask to have you subscribed to receive a message when something is posted there. The messages give a bit of information, but have a link to the comment. It goes in bursts, lots of messages sometimes, then lulls.

 

There is also an email reflector, 'incits-l8-interest@incits-l8.org'. If you like, I will request anyone (in the US) to be put on that. Quite a lot of messages on that one, some of which are relevant to 11179. There is an international counterpart: sc32wg2-interest@metadata-standards.org, which does not get a lot of traffic. Let me know if you or others want to subscribe to these.

 

Thanks.

 

Bruce

 

----Sent by--------------------------

Bruce Bargmeyer

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

University of California

1 Cyclotron Road, MS 50B-2231A

Berkeley, California 94720

Tel: +1 510-495-2905

Fax: +1 510-486-4004

email: bebargmeyer@lbl.gov

 

From: Breininger, Kathryn R [mailto:kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:43 AM
To: Farrukh Najmi; ebXML Regrep
Subject: RE: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3
Importance: High

 

Thank you Farrukh for your thoughtful review.  We will discuss during our meeting today, edit if needed, and if all agree will send comments to Bruce.

 

 

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

 

 


From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:56 AM
To: ebXML Regrep
Subject: Re: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3


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:

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]