[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
Thanks Diego - But how would you capture in the registry that an ExtrinsicObject is an ABIE (Aggregate Business Information Entity) vs. an ACC (Aggregate Core Component)? Joe Diego Ballvé wrote: > > Supporting (a), here is a sample jpg of our "Person Details" CC/BIE. > It was captured from a ebxmlrr's RegistryBrowser window. The graph > is incomplete since more related objects would popup from almost > every node, but I'm sure you can get the picture. > > Then, if you need to convert > <ExtrinsicObject ...> > ... > </ExtrinsicObject> > to/from > <AggregateBusinessInformationEntity ...> > ... > </AggregateBusinessInformationEntity> > then use XSLT!! ;) > (I know it might not be that simple, but that's the basic idea) > > Regards, > Diego > > ps.: David, I'll digest your CCR_CRI doc tomorrow morning, > but I can advance that we tried not to mix presentation w/ > model when adding BIEs to registry. To generate a XML Schema, > we've implemented a tool that uses JAXR to get BIEs from > registry (using diferent search options) and generate an > xml assembly document where customizations (XML element name, > for instance) can be made. XSLT + JAXR on this document and > we have the final business document. But I'll study your > doc tomorrow. > > > -----Original Message----- > > So we should create a RIM binding, and leave any definition of an XML > > representation of Core Components to the UBL TC? > > > > Joe > > > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > > > > > Nikola wrote: > > > > > > ><Joe> > > > >I can clarify: We pondered that approach several months > > ago (updating > > > >RIM to accomodate CCTS requirements), but decided that it > > was best not > > > >to touch the RIM, but rather to either (a) create a RIM > > binding, or (b) > > > >express the CCTS metadata in XML format, as a "wrapper" to the XML > > > >representation of the Core Component (i.e. an XML serialization). > > > > > > > >We then decided on approach (b) for several reasons, > > > ></Joe> > > > > > > > >This is somewhat different then what I'd suggested in my > > earlier post. And, > > > >I cannot recall that we've decided on (b) -> maybe I > > missed that decision > > > >somehow. > > > > > > > I cannot recall a decision in favour of (b) either. > > > > > > >I am strongly opposed to (b) because it is not our job to define > > > >"XML wrapper" for CCTS artifacts. In that way we are doing > > something that is > > > >step [2] in my earlier post, which is IMO job of UBL > > and/or other similar > > > >efforts, not ours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your > > arguments make me > > > agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our > > charter and > > > more in the purvue of UBL TC. > > > > > > -- > > > Farrukh > > > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: PersonDetails.jpg > PersonDetails.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > Encoding: base64 > Description: PersonDetails.jpg > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]