Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

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

Actually, I would say that we leave the xml binding to un/cefact atg.
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7481 
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"


-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>
CC: Nikola <nikola.stojanovic@acm.org>; regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org <regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wed Jun 04 15:27:18 2003
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

<Quote>
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.
</Quote>

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