Team here are my revised comments on this spec based on our discussion
last week.
Note that there are some additions under General Comments that we have
not discussed
so please take special look at those.
Please send any final suggestions on proposed text below...
----------Begin comments---------------
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for requesting input from the ebXML RegRep TC on ISO/IEC CD2
11179-3 spec.
Overall, we find that the spec is a very well put together. Here are
some comments we have compiled so far:
Technical Comments:
- 5.1.3 Contact, 5.1.5 Individual: Person <=> Contact model
mismatches
- Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class that
Organization and Person extend
- Add address, phone etc. to Party
- Direction of relationship between contact_info and Individual
is not intuitive. An individual has contact_info and not the other way
around.Consider reversing the relationship
- 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)
- 6.1.2.2 Scoped_Identifier:
Suggest simplifying identifier scheme. See ISO TC 211 specs for
codespace and code attributes scheme. Consider providing an example
that maps to a
URN naming scheme
- 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.
Suggests providing examples and clearer definition
- designation_sign attribute is particularly not clear
- 7.1 Registration metamodel region: Consider aligning this section
with ISO 19135
- 7.1.6.1 attachment: Attachment is so much better a name than
RepositoryItem (sigh: why did we not think of it)
- 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
- Does the spec have something analogous to ebXML RegRep
RegistryPackage? If not consider adding it as we have found it very
useful
- 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
- Perhaps the two specs handle localized content differently?
- I was unable to find a place in the spec where Association
support and Association metamodel was described. Consider defining a
clearer Association metamodel
General Questions:
- 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?
- Would it be possible for us to get feedback on RegRep 4
specifications from ISO 11179 spec team?
- Would it make sense to have a formal liaison between our two
groups?
Thanks again to for soliciting our inputs on this good work. We look
forward to seeing the next version of the spec and to continued
collaboration between our respective teams to achieve closer alignment
in our specs.
----------End comments---------------
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
|