Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Sure - I can elaborate.  I have worked on a number of implementations 
whereby the end users had a data dictionary built of Data Elements.  The 
Data Element metadata was aligned with the core components model.  The 
next step in fostering re-use of the data elements was to place them 
into a registry-repository and allow others to access them for purposes 
of modeling, creating human views, digesting into applications for 
assembly among other use cases.

The "sharing" of CC's and BIE's requires a use case whereby a person 
communicates with a registry, requests a CC or BIE and has one delivered 
back to them is needed.  The use cases were well documented 3 years ago.

In order to facilitate that use case, it is absolutely imperative to 
define the "what" it is they will get back if they requests a CC or BIE 
from a registry.  Because this was deemed out of scope for the CC group 
and no other group has tackled this, the implementations are either on 
hold or will use a proprietary format until such time as a standards 
body defines this.

After digesting some of the recent threads on this list, I believe we 
are tackling the problem backwards.  Instead of defining the storage 
format, it is much more useful if we define the serialization (what 
comes back as the result of a registry query to "get()" a CC or BIE).

You are correct - Yellow Dragon, XML Global  and Republica (as well as 
others) defined a few different formats for the serialization however 
none of these are approved standards.

We desperately need this.  Since it affects both CC and registry groups, 
this group is an ideal group to handle that work.

Duane Nickull

Carl Mattocks wrote:

>Duane:
>Could you expand on the 'holding back'  statement. I understood that You
>(YDS) and Republica had tackled this with some success.
>
>
>
>  
>

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