Re: [egov] UN XML project gains Microsoft support

[Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com>]

Please accept my apologies for my clumsy fingers.  I need to be more 
careful in spell checking things before hitting send.

;-)


Duane Nickull wrote:

>
>
> 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