Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Max,

And being simple is what CAM is about.

Max I believe the two tier approach:

1 - XSD
2 - CAM

is exactly what is needed.  People who have
worked a while with XSD realize the limits and
it does not take them long to figure out CAM is
worth their time and effort in moving to a new
level of sophistication.  But for really simple
local point-to-point stuff - XSD often is enough.

Large scale enterprise wide systems clearly
need more.

How about I send you some verbage on
CAM offline - and you see if you can
re-consitute that into such as re-vamping
of the CIQ approach document?

The third piece we've not mentioned here
is creating a registry and dictionary and
vocabularies of CIQ semantics and nouns.

What I'll send you covers off those possiblities
too - so I guess that is 3) on our list!

Cheers, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]


> David,
>
> Again, it's an old argument.
> We have to be realistic - people are not going to embrace CAM just because
> it's a good idea and there is an open source implementation. There are
many
> factors affecting this:
> 1. they don't understand it
> 2. they have never heard about it
> 3. they are conservative
> 4. they require wider industry support to adopt the standard
>
> Same thing applies to RDFS and OWL.
>
> Take for example NZ E-Gov with their flavour of xNAL. They had a very well
> defined requirement - "we wanna keep it simple". If I said "CAM" there
they
> would walk away. There are others who would readily embrace it. There is
no
> one size fits all.
>
> So, the idea is - let's keep it simple and modular. Everyone will simply
> pick the level of complexity that suits the task.
> What if we stage it this way:
>
> 1. Main stream - agree on the basic structures and define them in XSD.
> 2. add additional features such as CAM and RDFS
>
> David, why don't you grab the requirements document and make a few changes
> as you see it? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
> To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>; <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2004 10:19
> Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]
>
>
> > Max,
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Actually I'm seeing that a CAM template is just the same
> > as an XSD in terms of implementation here.
> >
> > Since the CAM processor is open source now - people
> > needing the level of functionality CAM brings you will
> > not have any impediment.
> >
> > People who want to do more with their information
> > exchanges quite simply cannnot get this for "free".
> >
> > Whether its RDF or OWL or CAM - you have to
> > use software to do something useful with it.
> >
> > But here's the good news about CAM templates -
> > they are designed so you can hand-edit and read them.
> >
> > Its not like you have to have some GUI tool to
> > interpret it for you.
> >
> > And you can paste your CIQ instances right into
> > the CAM template structure and then add the
> > CAM rules below it - so there is minimal
> > impact on your existing content.
> >
> > The PPT link I provided contains a link to
> > an example that uses multiple address formats,
> > so you can see how easy this is to engineer.
> >
> >
> http://drrw.net/presentations/XMLWG-01-04/CAM%20Order%20Item%20example.xml
> >
> > No tricks required!
> >
> > Cheers, DW
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
> > To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ciq] OLD [new requirements]
> >
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > The idea of different profiles came from studying many use cases where
> > xCIQ
> > > were applicable.
> > > We came across many situations where people were discouraged by the
size
> > and
> > > complexity of the standards.
> > >
> > > It is possible to achieve the same results with less effort thru
> > > simplification and normalisation of xCIQ. This is the main driver for
> the
> > > change.
> > >
> > > Take UDDI for example. We are considering some revamp to the contact
> > details
> > > area. It would be sensible to use xNAL there, but it is just too big.
> The
> > > contact details part may become larger than the rest of the UDDI
schema.
> > :-)
> > >
> > > I don't know why you are talking about bells and whistles - I didn't
> > propose
> > > any.
> > > Neither I mentioned webservices (did I?) - xCIQ are passive data
> > structures.
> > > If we decide to add any functionality it will be xCIQ API then.
> > >
> > > CAM is a great idea. I think that any standard will benefit from
> adopting
> > > it. On the other hand, it is a burden for implementers. Is it possible
> to
> > > use CAM as an optional add-on feature?
> > >
> > > We also need to keep in mind that the era of the semantic web is not
far
> > > away and gear up to this. Ram told me to make an RDF schema for xNAL
as
> > far
> > > as 2 years ago. I also included it as a requirement.
> > >
> > > Anyway, it's good to see that we got the ball rolling this time :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Max
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
> > > To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>;
> <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, 2 February 2004 17:18
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>