Team here are my revised comments on this spec based on our discussion
this week.
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. 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
- 8.1.2.1: Concept System section is difficult to understand.
Suggest clarifying text and adding examples
- 8.2.2 Classes in the Classification region:Good alignment in
Classification region
- RegRep and 11179 have a very different model for handling
language specific content. Perhaps this is an area where we can
collaborate to achieve better alignment
- Does the spec have something analogous to ebXML RegRep
RegistryPackage? If not, consider adding it as we have found it very
useful.
- We were unable to find a place in the spec where Association
support and Association metamodel was described. Consider defining a
clearer Association metamodel
- We were unable to find a concept equivalent to Repository or
RepositoryItem as defined in RegRep. Is this intentionally out of
scope? If so, please clarify in 1. Scope section.
- Examine spec for forward references and minimize whenever
possible. An example is that of Designatable_Item
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? RegRep TC feels that would be good. As a first exercise the
liason could define a cross-walk / mapping between the concepts of the
two specs
- Consider adding a reference to OASIS ebXML RegRep 3.0
specifications in Bibliography section
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|