Methodology

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

All:

Thanks for the welcome to the list.

In light of the recent work to define a storage mechanism for Core 
Components (including *CC's and *BIE's) within an ebXML Registry, I have 
some thoughts.  

After sitting with the past threads for a while, what occurred to me is 
that maybe we should not define the storage itself, but define the 
serialization that will come out of the registry.  Please think about 
this for a bit.

1. Like UDDI, I believe that we should stick to defining the interface 
to the object (CC) and leave the storage to the implementors.  

2. What I (among other people) really need to know is "what" we are 
going to get back if we ask a registry to give us a core component/BIE. 
 I don't really care how it is stored as long as its' relationships to 
other CC's and full semantics are preserved and those relationships are 
available via the RSS.

3. The serialization should probably be in XML format, but I am open to 
discussions.  UML is NOT suitable although I would envision that UML can 
be referenced from the XML serialization.

The lack of a concrete serialization or interface to a core component is 
holding back development of many systems.  I firmly believe that this is 
much needed and logical step forward for ebXML CC's and BIE's.

Duane Nickull

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com