[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] ACTION Required: FW: INCITS-L8-INTEREST: Re: Preliminarycomments from OASIS Reg/Rep
I found the font hard to read so I converted relevant parts of the email to a pdf document (see attached). HTH. Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: > Please see the comments below from the L8 on ISO 11179, mostly looking > for clarification on our submission. Please plan to review and discuss > at our next telecon on June 12th, as they need our response to answer > their questions in time for their meeting the next week. > Kathryn > > *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:* Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:24 AM > *To:* Breininger, Kathryn R > *Subject:* FW: INCITS-L8-INTEREST: Re: Preliminary comments from OASIS > Reg/Rep > *Importance:* High > > Kathryn, > > I forwarded the OASIS Reg/Rep comments directly to the SC 32 > Secretariat for inclusion with other comments received for the ballot > on 11179-3. > > L8 discussed the comments you sent and had some responses, mostly > seeking some clarification. Kevin Keck wrote up the following. The “I” > refers to Kevin after discussion with L8. > > If you have any additional responses, we will consider them during the > ballot resolution meeting in Jeju, Korea, scheduled for the week of > June 22. > > Thanks again. > > 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 <mailto:bebargmeyer@lbl.gov> > > *From:* Breininger, Kathryn R [mailto:kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com] > > *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2009 9:25 AM > > *To:* BEBargmeyer@lbl.gov <mailto:BEBargmeyer@lbl.gov> > > *Cc:* ebXML Regrep > > *Subject:* RE: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 > 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3 > > Hi Bruce, > > Thank you again for inviting us to comment on the ISO 11179-3. The TC > met yesterday and finalized the comments, which are included below. > Please let us know if you have any questions or any comments on our > comments! > > 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 > o Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class > that Organization and Person extend > o Add address, phone etc. to Party > o 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 > o 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) > > The term Individual was used in preference to Person because in WG1 > (of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32) Person is defined in the legal sense, which > actually corresponds to what OASIS calls a Party. > > There also seems to be confusion reflected here about the meaning of > the Contact class, which is not simply a record structure for contact > information, it instead represents a *role* of a Person (Individual) > within some Organization, i.e., is (logically) an association between > a Person (Individual) and an Organization. It is for this reason that > title is not an attribute of Person (Individual), it is an attribute > of Contact. It is also intentional that phone, etc. are not attributes > of Person (Individual) either, but rather of Contact. The US TAG has > discussed changing the name of the Contact class to Representative, in > part to hopefully make this more clear. I suggest we include that > suggestion in our ballot comments for CD2. > > I do not feel strongly about whether to include a Party superclass in > the 11179-3 metamodel, but it was decided previously by the US that > such a class was not needed for the purposes of 11179-3, and thus > imposing a requirement that implementations provide such a supertype > was not justified. Absence of the supertype in the 11179-3 metamodel > should not preclude implementations from having such a supertype, the > issue is whether it should be required as a matter of conformance. > > * 6.1.2.2 Scoped_Identifier: > Suggest simplifying identifier scheme. Consider providing an > example that maps to a URN naming scheme > > I agree that an example would be very helpful. I will propose a ballot > comment to provide at least one, in an annex. > > * 6.1.2.4 Slot: Thanks for the good alignment here > > No comment called for on ballot, but thank you. > > * 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 > o designation_sign attribute is particularly not clear > > I will propose a ballot comment calling for some examples in clause > 6.2.2.3.1. > > I will also propose a ballot comment suggesting a better definition of > designation_sign in clauses 3.4.45 and 6.2.2.3.2.1. Working new > definition: sign denoting the designatable item, as represented by a > designation. > > * 7.1 Registration metamodel region: Consider aligning this > section with ISO 19135 > > Could you be more specific about what parts of 19135 and 11179-3 ought > to be (better) aligned? > > I would note that 19135 includes 11179-3 in its bibliography and cites > it as the source of two definitions (for identifier and registry). > Registration in 19135 appears to have departed from 11179-3 in two > main ways: > > 1) A distinction is made between a Register Owner and a Register > Manager, whereas 11179-3 only defines a Registration Authority. Is > this distinction relevant to 11179-3? > > 2) 19135 formalizes a notion of a hierarchical register. Is this > important to also formalize in 11179-3? > > * 8.1.2.1: Concept System section is difficult to understand. > Suggest clarifying text and adding examples > > Examples are provided in Annex F. I will propose a comment to insert a > forward reference from clause 8 to that annex, directing readers to > look there for examples. > > For clarifying text, more specific comments are requested about what > requires clarification. > > * 8.2.2 Classes in the Classification region:Good alignment in > Classification region > > No comment called for on ballot. > > * 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 > > I think that's a great idea, yes. But it sounds like you'd prefer to > put this down as a future task, not a change to be made to 11179-3 at > this time, so there is no comment being called for here on the CD2 ballot. > > * Does the spec have something analogous to ebXML RegRep > RegistryPackage? If not, consider adding it as we have found it > very useful. > > It currently does not, but provision of some type of grouping > mechanism has been suggested before, by experts in the US TAG. I think > what has been lacking is an articulation of requirements to be met by > such a mechanism. > > * We were unable to find a place in the spec where Association > support and Association metamodel was described. Consider > defining a clearer Association metamodel > > In some ways the Relation and Link parts of the Concept System > metamodel could be considered a specialization of Association as > defined in Reg/Rep, scoped to apply only to Concepts (of which many, > but not all, of the Data Description classes are subtypes). One > difference, however, is that Links in 11179-3 may be of higher arity > than 2. Another is that Links do not have one of their ends as the > "source"—the "source" of a Link is a concept system(s), rather than > one of the ends of the Link. > > Another element in the 11179-3 metamodel that highly resembles Reg/Rep > Associations is concept system reference (clause 8.1.3.3), which is > binary, is directional, and is required to be (sub)typed (it is marked > as abstract). An implementer of 11179-3 who wished to do so on top of > an implementation of Reg/Rep would be smart to implement concept > system reference as a subclass (either explicitly or implicitly) of > Association. > > Introduction of the very abstract Association facility from Reg/Rep > into 11179-3, though, would I think be strongly resisted by the 11179 > community at large, because it would be unclear what unmet need such a > generic facility would serve, and would raise legitimate concerns > about how such things could be interpreted consistently when > encountered in a metadata registry. > > * 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. > > I think the closest thing in 11179-3 currently is Reference_Document. > 11179-3 does not specify whether the document itself should or should > not be stored within the registry, but CD2 does provide an uri > attribute by which the document might be accessed, wherever it is stored. > > I am happy to propose a comment to state this explicitly in the scope > section. > > * Examine spec for forward references and minimize whenever > possible. An example is that of Designatable_Item > > I don't think I would describe this problem as one of forward > references, but I hear again frustration about the description of > Designatable_Item. This should be captured in a comment, even if we > have no specific recommendation to offer as a proposed solution. > > [end of technical comments] > > 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 liaison 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. > > Sincerely, > > Kathryn > > *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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > o Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class > that Organization and Person extend > o Add address, phone etc. to Party > o 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 <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 <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_ > -- Regards, Farrukh Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]