Re: [ciq] FW: [members] Public Review of eNotarization Markup Language (ENML) Version 1.0

[Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]

David,

 

I do not know how more lite can CIQ be?

To make it easy for users, we componentised CIQ schemas (has always been the case ) so that user can just import the entities they want. For example, if you need only the address component, just import the address schema which is about 30K in size and has less than 30 tags.

 

If the user wants party name entity, just import the name schema which is 13K in size with less than 8 tags

 

If you want party details, then you need xPIL schema which in turn reuses party name and address schema and the size of xPIL schema is about 72 KB

 

If user wants party relationships, then they need party details schema which in turn imports party name and address schemas to enable reusability and the size of the schema is: 8KB.

 

I am not sure how lite the CIQ can be and to minimise the use of a number of tags to suit various applications, we chose the option of enumeration list to define the data semantics which is customisable and we did not even pre-fill the list with values!

 

The problem is see here is that users want party schema that is in a structure that they exactly need and are not prepared to use a generic schema. People who understand the concept of a common/enterprise information model that acts as the abstract model that "loosely couples" data formats from the physical implementation models, will really and truly appreciate the value of CIQ. But most of the work is done as "point to point" integration (traditional way of doing things) and therefore, users prefer to have their own customised schema that meets their requirements exactly...no more no less!

 

Please correct me if I am wrong here.

 

Unless someone can show me how a CIQ-lite schema looks, I will not be convinced. CIQ v2.0 was complex as it had deep hierarchical nestings. But CIQ v3.0 is so flat in structure and at the same time gives users the flexibility to define the exact semantics of the data rather than relying on some pre-defined metadata tags.

 

Regards,

 

Ram

 

On 3/26/09, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Ram,

 

Part of the issue may be use.  Not everyone is comfortable with importing the CIQ family of schemas into their own.

 

What may make sense is to have a CIQ-lite of subset schemas for these folks.  I see a recurring theme here in terms of what people want to include - and this may just be the game-changer that works for them.

 

A lot of time folks just literally want the basic address components and none of the other constructs.

 

I'll ferret out the DoD example as an instance of this.  Tragically they have a subset that is less than optimal (another task to alert them to the gaps in that!) - but at least it shows the sort of thing that's occurring out there - and the potential opportunity we have here to reach these folks...

 

CIQ-lite would be a non-normative subset of the official schemas - and hence be something we can create some flexible packages for - without having to go thru full cycle adoption - just committee drafts.  The advantage being that the subset is 100% compatible with the main schemas.

 

Thanks, DW

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ciq] FW: [members] Public Review of eNotarization Markup
Language (ENML) Version 1.0

From: Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, March 25, 2009 12:19 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: Colin.Wallis@ssc.govt.nz, egov-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,
ciq@lists.oasis-open.org

Colin et al,

 

This has always been the case. When standard committees are not interested in reuse, how do we expect public to follow standards? We as TCs should set an example  to interoperate oru specs. within our TCs. We as a TC constantly look for feedback from other groups so that we can improve our specs. to ensure we cater common requirements. But they just go ahead and make their own decisions and they do not even tell why they decided to do their own version.

 

I have been raising this issue for many years now, but it has been of no use.

 

Regards,

 

Ram

 

On 3/25/09, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Colin,

 

Sigh. 

 

Yes - it seem like at one point we were holding the sand in the bucket - now folks are "borrowing" liberally from CIQ what they feel they need - not attributing - and creating something that is a hybrid.

 

Since its just a committee draft they have - minimum they should be doing is formally linking their dictionary to the CIQ element dictionary - so we know we have one to one correspondence.

 

Notice CAM now includes a handy dictionary creation feature - and dictionary compare tool - that creates a spreadsheet of the deltas.  I'd been meaning to socialize this fact with the other TC chairs... maybe now is a good moment to show this working here...

 

The SET TC is also looking at how to formalize intra-domain crosswalks.

 

Simply put - I don't mind them so much using goofy home spun address formats - so long as they can show equivalence - so there is zero transformation needed in and out of CIQ - just simple assignments.

 

This is not the first one I've encountered this week.  I noticed the US DoD is creating Address now with free format lines and then qualified elements - that looks very similar to CIQ, but subtly different.  I'll be commenting on the DoD one when they put that out for public comment too.

 

Thanks, DW

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ciq] FW: [members] Public Review of eNotarization Markup
Language (ENML) Version 1.0

From: <Colin.Wallis@ssc.govt.nz>
Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 5:13 pm
To: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>, <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Cc: <egov-sc@lists.oasis-open.org>



Greetings all

We have a problem I believe because the customer information doesn't
look like CIQ...

Cheers
Colin



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2009 6:37 a.m.
To: members@lists.oasis-open.org; tc-announce@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org; tab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [members] Public Review of eNotarization Markup Language (ENML)
Version 1.0

To OASIS Members, Public Announce Lists:

The OASIS LegalXML eNotarization TC has recently approved the following
specification as a Committee Draft and approved the package for public
review:

eNotarization Markup Language (ENML) Version 1.0

The public review starts today, 24 March 2009, and ends 23 May 2009.
This is an open invitation to comment. We strongly encourage feedback
from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or
not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of OASIS
work. Please feel free to distribute this announcement within your
organization and to other appropriate mail lists.

More non-normative information about the specification and the technical
committee may be found at the public home page of the TC at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=legalxml-enot
ary
. Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of
the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button marked
"Send A Comment" at the top of that page, or directly at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=legalx
ml-enotary
.

Submitted comments (for this work as well as other works of that TC) are
publicly archived and can be viewed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-enotary-comment/. All
comments submitted to OASIS are subject to the OASIS Feedback License,
which ensures that the feedback you provide carries the same obligations
at least as the obligations of the TC members.

The specification document and related files are available here:

Editable Source:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-enotary/enml/v1.0/pr01/ENML-1.0-Spec
ification.odt

PDF:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-enotary/enml/v1.0/pr01/ENML-1.0-Spec
ification.pdf

HTML:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-enotary/enml/v1.0/pr01/ENML-1.0-Spec
ification.html

Schema:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-enotary/enml/v1.0/pr01/enml-200901-p
r01.xsd


OASIS and the LegalXML eNotarization TC welcome your comments.


Mary P McRae
Director, Technical Committee Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org

web: http://www.oasis-open.org/
twitter: fiberartisan
phone: 1.603.232.9090




---------------------------------------------------------------------

This email list is used solely by OASIS for official consortium
communications.

Opt-out requests may be sent to member-services@oasis-open.org, however,
all members are strongly encouraged to maintain a subscription to this
list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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