OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep-cc-review message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: re: How Should UML Be Treated? (Was: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!)


I completely agree - its not our job to police the UML that
is stored into the registry - or anything else - for that matter!

If people want to add some kind of validation service - 
the registry supports that - but equally we have to be able
to store stuff "as is".   For example - XML fragments - may
be invalid standalone - or may contain references to 
URL content we cannot verify.  Also - people may 
post 'partial' information - as a draft - that they intend
to complete later.

I think when the CCTS spec' talks about 'valid' CC's they
are referring to items that have been blessed and moved
from 'candidate' status to 'approved'.  Again that whole
manage is external to the registry.   The RIM provides 
metadata to track such processes already.

Thanks, DW.
Message text written by "Chiusano Joseph"
I think that now is a good time to ask: How should the UML model of a
Core Component be treated by the registry? IOW, is it simply an
ExtrinsicObject whose metadata would be compliant with the CCTS spec?
Or, would the metadata specified in the CCTS reside *inside* the UML
model as part of its definition? 

I believe it's the former - but David's comment made me see the need to

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]