Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

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

<Quote>
As a requirement I believe we are supporting CCTS, but not
at the exclusion of everything else.  We should have a broader
goal - and then showing how CCTS semantics can also be 
captured and implemented too.
</Quote>

David, 

I fully support your ideas, and definitely think they should be carried
through further. But the goal of this activity is to provide an XML
serialization that complies with the CCTS spec, so that all would be
outside the scope of this activity. I feel we should start by supporting
CCTS in order to lay a foundation - and then build up from there.

Other thoughts?

Joe

David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Having sat in thru CCTS meetings - the first thing that strikes you is
> that they have put a great deal of thought into creating a minimum
> function set - that thru recursion - satisfies their requirements.
> 
> However - they have internalized this themselves - and its not
> entirely obvious how the chinese rings fits neatly together.
> 
> I think if we focus narrowly on their spec', and do not take a
> broader view initially - then we will constrain ourselves
> artifically.
> 
> Particularly - we need to realize that we are infact building the
> implementation layer for their conceptual layer.  So very little
> in their spec' speaks to implementation mechanics - since they
> are focused on behaviours.  In particular legacy migration of
> existing vocabularies is an area that I see we have where
> thru providing better mechanisms at the implementation layer
> we can facilitate adoption of our CCR/S specification.  Notice
> this is separate and distinct from promoting adoption of CCTS.
> 
> As a requirement I believe we are supporting CCTS, but not
> at the exclusion of everything else.  We should have a broader
> goal - and then showing how CCTS semantics can also be
> captured and implemented too.
> 
> As a strawman - something like :
> 
> 1) providing XML constructs for the implementation of
>     ebusiness vocabularies as physical nouns, and aggregates
>     while enabling the deriving of conceptual core components
>     and their crosswalks to the physical entities.
> 
> 2) Supporting rendering implementation layer semantics
>      with physical typing support and validation semantics for the
>      business logical needs.
> 
> 3) Providing classification and ontology support and
>      conceptual typing for the design and modelling needs.
> 
> 4) Providing interfacing to content assembly mechanisms
>      using XML, and support for migrating legacy
>      non-XML formats.
> 
> 5) Providing search and discover support for tools that
>      support enduser access to a vocabulary, or across
>      vocabularies.
> 
> 6) Enabling industries to share common vocabularies and
>      develop better alignment of semantics for shared
>      meanings across industries.
> 
> Thanks, DW.
> ========================================================
> Message text written by "Chiusano Joseph"
> >>
> > 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?
> <
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard