[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] How Should UML Be Treated? (Was: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!)
David, I think you're taking my comment farther than I intended. I merely meant that we have to ensure there is a mapping of the required metadata to the RIM, not that we have to define an API to extract the information out of a UML object. How the metadata gets into the registry can take a number of courses that vendors can develop. I think we need to provide the verification that the registry "can" capture the elements, not the "how". -Paul -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:25 PM To: MACIAS, Paul Cc: Chiusano Joseph; CRAWFORD, Mark; firstname.lastname@example.org; Diego Ballvé Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] How Should UML Be Treated? (Was: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!) Message text written by "MACIAS, Paul" >If that is the proper question, then my gut reaction is to suggest that we ensure that the registry is capable of capturing the Table 6-1 information and leave it to the implementer/users as to whether they also include the data in the UML object of the repository. I just think the RIM provides more control over what goes into the registry than what goes in the repository. <<<< Paul, Precisely my point - if UML tool vendors / users want to store their UML binaries as extrinsic objects - that's fine. We need to make sure that the right metadata and semantics is captured to facilitate CCTS in an ebXML Registry - regardless of whether the user has a UML tool or not. Republica have shown how to build such an interface using just a Java component that is "CCTS aware". Therefore creating the XML serialization is the right way to go to include Table 6-1 metadata content - and then, once you are there - then you can build out from that - as the CRI work illustrates - to include support for the "Big 3 C's". Thanks, DW.