Re: [regrep-cc-review] Moving Forward (RIM-based vs. XMLSerialization)

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

<Quote>
leading with the RIM approach to cover off as much as we can there, and
supplementing that with limited XML-serialization as needed,
and particularly to mitigate changes to the RIM itself.
</Quote>

Would that mean (sorry for the multiple choice here):

(a) Mapping to current RIM architecture as much as possible, and
covering "unmappable" items with Slots, OR

(b) Mapping to current RIM architecture as much as possible and covering
"unmappable" items with limited XML-serialization (and not Slots), OR

(c) Something else?

Joe

David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I basically agreeing here - but I would note that I do not think
> the RIM v XML-serialization is my sense here - I would argue
> that we use both of these in tandem as needed - leading with
> the RIM approach to cover off as much as we can there, and
> supplementing that with limited XML-serialization as needed,
> and particularly to mitigate changes to the RIM itself.
> 
> This gets us the best of both worlds - and also - as you note,
> gives people a clear model to follow.
> 
> I think the BPSS thing is a red-herring and we should not let
> that distract us here.
> 
> The crux of the CCTS request is that the registry should
> support certain special behaviours that they deem required
> for their use of registry in support of CCTS.   As such they
> may not be unique - but certainly they represent a different
> class of registry user compared to the norm who use
> the provided mechanisms as is.
> 
> Thanks, DW.
> =========================================================
> Message text written by "Breininger, Kathryn R"
> >Our first week has been great - we've brought a lot of critical issues
> out in the open. Our biggest issue has been the general approach of Core
> Component representation - what I call "RIM-based vs. XML
> Serialization".
> 
> To date, there have been very strong arguments on both sides. I have
> read and internalized all postings, and I definitely have a sense that
> the majority of the group favors a RIM-based approach, where we attempt
> to map the CCTS Section 7 attributes to the existing RIM, and use the
> RIM extensibility mechanism (slots) to accomodate those attributes that
> could not be cleanly mapped.
> 
> ** Please let me know if you disagree with this sense. **
> <
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