[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: MORE: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]
Max, Supplemental - I missed the most important peice out of the methods - managing CONTEXT. To see how this plays out - look at the presentations from the 21st Jan, 2004 @ the XML WG. http://xml.gov/presentations.asp#20040121 Cheers, DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info> To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>; <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements] > Max, > > Looking at your document seems to me these are > all OLD requirements!?! > > I like the idea of creating PROFILES. > > I'm a bit hestitant over going with the requirements > document as you have it. Certainly from the > address point of view - we can categorize > communities (aka profiles). But specific > technical features (web service, et al) I think > we should be careful of. Better to stay > more abstract - and then look at a selection > of methods. People can always bolt on > technical bells and whistles as they desire > to our foundation methods then. > > In this regard - I believe the UPU has a > comprehensive and clear set of requirements > for postal addressing. > > What I'd like to see is us taking that and > creating one sample PROFILE for CIQ > and UPU using CAM templates as the > bridge. CAM is providing a method > based around UID references, noun, > and sub-assemblies. > > Now we have the open source CAM > processor available ( http://jcam.org.uk ) > there is nothing technically impeding this > work. I know the UPU has some > excellent test data (and I'm sure there is others > such as Australia, Japan, etc) that we can use. > > By making one such PROFILE - I believe > we will then be in a position to understand > how these other areas may also be addressed. > > What I see here is that the challenge for CIQ > is really one of moving beyond what XSD has > to offer - and using techniques that can > provide the level of eBusiness re-use of > address structures that are required. > > If you crack that nut - then all these > profiles will fit neatly into place. > > Thanks, DW. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz> > To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:15 PM > Subject: [ciq] new requirements > > > > Hi Ram, > > > > As we decided to get started with a new version of our standards I'd like > to > > upload a requirements documents. > > > > Could you please, create a folder for draft documents on v.next? > > > > Cheers, > > Max > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]