Re: [egov] UN XML project gains Microsoft support

[Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com>]

David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:

>As you create CAM templates - say a UBL OP70, 
>or an OAG BOD part order equivalent, then you 
>store them in the registry.
>
[DN] that is fine - this isi what the registry is supposed to do and can 
do whuite well.

>   Now - someone wanting
>to use one of these - may request it from the registry,
>and then invoke CAM as a service to check the syntax
>and structure of a local transaction sample they have,
>and get a report on the compliance.  Martin Roberts
>demo'd this behaviour in London with his prototype.
>
Hmmm.  This is not actually a function of registry.  What you describe 
is useful however. IMHO - this functionality belongs in an external 
application.  :et's keepp the registry scoped to its' intended purpose 
and allow it to do that purpose well.

>Basically, CAM becomes a API extension of the
>registry - and you can invoke it with various parameter
>sets - depending on what behaviour you need.
>
[DN] The current Registry API can facilitate lifecycle management. 
 Adding a custom API to invoke methods on Registry objects creates a 
problem by then making the registry become something other than a 
meta-object facility.

I see a clear need for this functionality.  The idea for a 
"schema-express" type application that could assemble the final payload 
metadata based on a users requirement would be useful for UBL and other 
component based taxonomies.

>You could also use CAM to check content before its
>accepted into the registry and report any 
>descrepencies.
>
[DN] IMO that again is outside the scope of a registry, although this 
functionality is clearly needed.  I have become a big fan of breaking 
large problems into several smaller ones and solving those one at a time.

>>From an eGov point of view - once you have this 
>facility you can purpose this to create many 
>business mechanisms above it - that are useful
>for discreet implementation configurations.
>
[DN] I favour keeping the registry scoped as is.  Once we get a few of 
these implemented, others can start populating them then developers can 
build this "edge" functionality around registry services.  Mapping the 
set of requirements CAM has back to the RSS and RIM will be an important 
excesire to make sure we have everything needed for these next layers.

What is CAM's timetable for publishing a spec?

I also see a lot of your GUIDE work being useful in this arena.

cheers

/d 

>
>Thanks, DW.
>
>
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>  
>

-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Professional Software Development & Metadata Management
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time