Re: [egov] Registry Pilot Proposal

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Quick clarification below.

Duane Nickull wrote:
> 
> Comments inline:
> 
> >· it must be possible to create schema documents from components held in
> >the repository;
> >
> Yes - this is a bit hard to do today.  This is what CAM should do.  The
> binding template allows you to declare "Use this data element within
> this schema with XXX constraints".
> 
> >· it must be possible to hold multiple versions of schema components and
> >complete schema documents;
> >
> This is not problem actually for an ebXML registry.  In fact, it handles
> this with ease and can be demonstrated quite easily.

[JMC] Absolutely - I should have clarified which part of this I was
referring to. I was actually referring to the reference to "schema
components" vs. "schema documents", a la point #1. I should have
clarified that the versioning is a registry feature, and that I was
referring to the schema components reference.

Joe
 
> Duane
> 
> >
> >The reason I say this is that (as you know) the ebXML Registry
> >specification does not yet have *native* (plug-and-play) support for
> >fine-grained components such as elements, attributes, datatypes, and
> >namespace identifiers (again, I mean that these are not explicitly
> >called out in the spec, but an implementer can certainly accomodate them
> >given the abstract nature of the ebXML Registry information model). The
> >Core Components work will get us closer to this, but it is a methodology
> >that not all will want/need to adopt. So we still need to have native
> >support for these fine-grained XML components. My hope is that the new
> >Semantic Content Management initiative in the ebXML Registry TC will
> >address this.
> >
> >David Webber will most likely follow with a comment on how CAM fits with
> >all of this. :)
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >Joe
> >
> >Paul Spencer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So far, my draft of this proposal has had a restricted audience (those who
> >>expressed an interest) while I was waiting for the MOD to confirm its
> >>intended involvement. I am pleased to say that this has now happened, and I
> >>would like everyone to have a chance to comment.
> >>
> >>It is vital that we get this right at this stage as we need to agree a
> >>project scope and timescale and commit the resources required. I suggest
> >>that we freeze the proposal on Feb 24 to allow a couple of days before the
> >>next telecon, when I hope we can approve it.
> >>
> >>So the more comments the better. Especially those that propose changed
> >>wording rather than leaving that to me :-)
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>
> >>Paul Spencer
> >>Director
> >>Boynings Consulting Ltd
> >>http://www.boynings.co.uk
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>                        Name: proposal-v0-2.doc
> >>   proposal-v0-2.doc    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> >>                    Encoding: base64
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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/egov/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/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com