[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
This is all filling out nicely! Joe "CRAWFORD, Mark" wrote: > > 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
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]