Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
This CCTS Overview Presentation may help. Also keep in mind that the formalism at this point is a spreadsheet that lists the various parts of the metamodel(s). You should also look at Gunter's CC paper. I intend to propose CEFACT adoption of Gunter's paper at our F2F in two weeks. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:51 AM > To: Farrukh Najmi > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; > email@example.com > Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff! > > > Farrukh, > > I completely agree with you. The spec is written in such a way that it > is difficult to digest. Perhaps this may help: I've attached several > high-level summary documents that we created during our CC Review > Subteam work last year. Although these documents are based on previous > versions of the CC Spec, the high-level concepts are (for the > most part) > the same. > > One document (Core Components Summary v1.69a.doc) is my summary of the > basic CC concepts. The other 2 documents (Figure 7-X CC Spec) are a > summary of entities and metadata attributes contained in 2 > figures from > the previous version of the CC spec, along with examples. > > What I'd like to suggest is that the Team review these summary > documents, and if further clarifications are needed, we can certainly > schedule a call. > > Does that sound good to you? > > Thanks, > Joe > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > > > >CC Review Team, > > > > > >Welcome! Today begins the official kickoff of our Core > Components XML > > >Serialization work. I would like to thank you in advance for your > > >contributions to this valuable work. > > > > > >For those who may not have a copy of the December 2002 (v1.9) Core > > >Components Technical Specification, please see attached. > This week, I > > >hope we can accomplish the following: > > > > > >(1) CCTS Review and Clarification: > > > > > >- All members please review Section 7 (p.74) of spec, and > offer up to > > >our listserv any questions you have. This is the section > that we will be > > >verifying for the UN/CEFACT CCTS Team. > > > > > >- Please also start thinking in terms of which metadata > entities and > > >attributes can map to our current RIM architecture, and in > what way. > > > > > Joe, > > > > I tried reading the CCTS spec and am having much trouble > digesting it. I > > think it would be a good idea, if as a first step, you > could schedule a > > sub-team meeting and go over the CCTS info model and core > concepts. What > > do other team members think? > > > > > > > >(2) Requirements: > > > > > >- At our recent Registry TC call, we discussed compiling a list of > > >requirements as soon as possible. > > > > > >- Beyond the obvious requirement that our work comply with > the CCTS 1.9 > > >spec to the greatest degree possible, what are some other > requirements? > > > > > > > > > > > Other requirement sugestions: > > > > -Must align well with ebXML Registry specs by maximizing > leverage and > > minimizing overlap. > > > > Deliverables include: > > > > -A specification describing how to represent CC artifacts > in XML with an > > XML Schema and related semantic rules, design patterns and > conventions > > as its basis. > > > > -- > > Farrukh >
Core Components and UBL for ACORD_ajs.ppt