RE: [regrep-cc-review] What Will RepositoryItem Be? (Was: Re: [regrep-cc-review]Kickoff!)

[Diego Ballvé <diego.ballve@republica.fi>]

I'm not sure if I like it. In my understanding, CoreComponent is
abstract, it shapes an idea, a concept. Only after you go through
the entire process you get something that can be used in practice*.
This is why I think it suits metadata.

* I mean, when doing business you cannot use a CoreComponent (or
BIE, to be according to specs) but an implementation of it, like
a XML fragment defined by a XML Schema/DTD or an Object (say Java
or C++). I'm not so familiar with EDI but it might follow the same
idea. Again, storing the CC/BIE representation is different than
storing the CC/BIE (idea, concept) and, IMO, should be kept apart.

If they are all to be stored in the registry, they can be stored
as different objects. The different 'implementations' Extrinsic
Objects would be related to to conceptual BIE.

Diego

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:01 PM
> To: Farrukh Najmi
> Cc: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness;
> regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org; CRAWFORD Mark
> Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] What Will RepositoryItem Be? (Was: Re:
> [regrep-cc-review]Kickoff!)
> 
> 
> <Quote>
> How about a hierarchy of ObjectType as follows:
> </Quote>
> 
> I like it! Using a classification scheme (as you suggest) 
> would allow it
> to be extensible, as users may want to store (for example) "EDI Core
> Components" as well (or whatever format may be used).
> 
> Joe
> 
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> > 
> > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > 
> > >Team,
> > >
> > >Another issue I'd like us to clarify is what a RepositoryItem for a
> > >CC/BIE would be. Based on our most recent discussions, I 
> think it is
> > >reasonably clear - but I'd like to just make sure we're 
> all on the same
> > >page.
> > >
> > >The main question here is: "Is there any reason that we 
> should not allow
> > >for XML representations of Core Components to be stored?"
> > >
> > >David mentioned "XML fragments" in (a) below. This means that (for
> > >example) a Core Component named "StreetName" could be 
> stored as a single
> > >element, as shown below (using type "string" for general purposes):
> > >
> > ><xsd:element name="StreetName" type="xsd:string"/>
> > >
> > >Of course, this would not be well-formed XML. The CCTS spec also
> > >specifically states that Core Components are UML models.
> > >
> > >Having said that:
> > >
> > >We know that we need to comply with the CCTS spec by allowing Core
> > >Components to be stored as UML models. This can already be 
> done through
> > >use of an ExtrinsicObject -
> > >
> > +1
> > 
> > > we would simply have to add an ObjectType or
> > >MimeType that indicates a UML-format Core Component 
> (althought I don't
> > >believe UML has its own mime type).
> > >
> > See figure below and suggestion.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >Is there any reason that we should not allow for XML 
> representations of
> > >Core Components to be stored? Please note that this would 
> not be the
> > >same as an XML serialization for Core Components
> > >
> > I see no reason to disallow XML reps of CC to be stored.
> > 
> > >- an XML serialization
> > >would "wrap" the StreetName element above with metadata 
> from the CC spec
> > >in XML form. This means we would need two "indicators":
> > >
> > >(1) ObjectType = "Core Component"
> > >(2) Object Format = "XML" or "UML" (could use MimeType)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > How about a hierarchy of ObjectType as follows:
> > 
> >                       Core Component
> >                                    ^
> >                                     |
> >                  ------------------------------
> >                  |                                    |
> >     XML Core Componet        UML Core Component
> > 
> > --
> > Farrukh
>