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