RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

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:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: Farrukh Najmi
> Cc: regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org;
> kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.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

draft-stuhec-ccc-11.doc