Notes from conference call - 3/14

[Lisa Carnahan <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>]

Hello All,

The two attached files contain notes (minutes?) from yesterday's conference 
call and the Issues Log that was generated (by Farrukh) as a result of the 
discussion.  The Issues Log is now a living document that we should be 
adding/revising as we go along.  Farrukh will maintain the Issues 
Log.  Please let me know if I need to make changes to the notes.

--lisa

Title: Notes from ebXML Registry/Repository Team Conference Call – March 14,

Notes from ebXML Registry/Repository Team Conference Call – March 14,

1:00 – 3:30 (Eastern Time)

 

Attendees:

Lisa Carnahan, NIST

Len Gallagher, NIST

Scott Hinkleman, IBM

Farrukh Najmi, Sun

Nikola Stojanovic, Encoda Systems

 

The attendees discussed the following issues that were prepared and distributed by Farrukh Najmi in his email http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200103/msg00064.html .

 

Many of the items are marked ‘no action item was assigned at this time.’  This phrase implies that reasonable action cannot be taken on this topic with resolution and document changes before the March 19^th submission deadline to the QR team.  The attached issues log refers to the phrase as ‘post-QR’.

 

RIM

------------

-Do we need a Contact attribute in AuditableIdentity?

There was consensus that Contact be merged with the AuditableIdentity .  The name of the new interface was undecided.   No action item was assigned at this time.

-We should make Classification a sibling of Association and remove the

hard wired attributed like associationType, role, etc.

Consensus agreed.  Farrukh will make the change in next RIM revision.

-Define contraints in RIM interfaces like NOT NULL

There was consensus that this needs to be addressed in the RIM and that more discussion is needed.  No action item was assigned at this time.

-Define max lengths on String attributes in RIM somehow

There was consensus that this is necessary.  Examples in other specifications (e.g. the Learning Object Metamodel from the IMS Global Learning Consortium) were mentioned.  No action item was assigned at this time.

-Need to add slotType attribute to slot so we can define speced slot

types for light weight classification etc.

There was consensus to add the slotType attribute.  l18N was defined as one of the first defined uses.  Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM revision.

-Change enumeration design so it is a registered and required

ClassificationScheme

There was consensus to allow enumerated type values to be defined as a classification scheme.  This provides the extensibility needed by various communities in defining their own enumeration values.  Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM version.

-Need to address resolvability of Content URI

There was consensus that the following concept be added to the RIM: “The content URI is guaranteed resolvable.  The Registration Authority is responsible for ensuring that the content URL is resolvable. “  Farrukh will make the change in the next RIM version.

 

 

RS General

------------

-PR1: Need careful review of the DTD and improved comments within it.

There was consensus that semantic rules should be added for the elements in the DTD.  There was discussion regarding the placement of the semantic rules (as comments in the DTD or as document text) with no consensus regarding placement. No action item was assigned at this time.

-PR1: Address the issue of version in every request response message.

Get rid of it.

There was consensus to eliminate Version (meaning registry version (i.e., specification version)) from every request and response message.  Version should be obtainable from the CPP.  Further, it should be an error if the version is unidentifiable. 

-PR1: Need registry version in RegistryProfile

See Previous issue.

-PR2: Need examples of select DTD elements (e.g. SubmitObjectsRequest)

There was consensus that the use of examples in the document would be helpful. However no action item was assigned.   From this discussion a new issue was raised.  New issue: Should the same DTD be used for XML coming in and XML going out (e.g., same DTD for extrinsic objects being registered and returned?)  Initial agreement was not reached on this issue.  Additional discussion will take place after the March 19 submission.

-PR3: Need an NLS example?

There was consensus that an NLS example using the Slots functionality would be useful to show both concepts.  An action item was not assigned at this time.

 

RS Filter Query

----------------

-PR1: DTD element and attribute names sometime do not match RIM. Some

examples are RegistryPakage

There was consensus that Package be changed to RegistryPackage.  Additionally folks agreed to watch for any additional inconsistencies and send them to Farrukh.

-PR1: We need to align the error handling between main DTD (ebXMLError)

and FilterQuery dtd

There was consensus that the error handling between the main DTD and the FilterQuery.dtd should be aligned.   Additionally, our ebXMLError needs to be in sync with the new TRP ebXMLError.  No action item was assigned at this time.

-PR1: There is confusion over whether we decided ResponsibleOrg was in

or out for phase 1. RIM does nothave it but 8.2 does

There was consensus that the ResponsibleOrg needs to be added to the RIM.  However, there was not consensus in its placement, nor the immediate impact of its placement.  No action item was assigned at this time.

-PR1: Need at least 1 example of FilterQuery that shows Clause syntax in

the example rather than the shorthand. Need to clarify that the rest of

the examples will use short hand syntax for brevity

This has been done by Scott Hinkleman.

-PR2: xxReference elements seem to provide a alternate reference

mechanism from ObjectRef element in main DTD. One solution may be to

rename xxReference to xxView and think of them as light weight views of

the actual RIM type.

There was consensus that xxReference should be changed to xxView. 

-PR2: Should we move GetRegistryEntry and GetRepositoryItem under

FilterQuery in DTD?

(I think) there was consensus to agree to do this.

-PR2: DTD in appendix Vs. DTD in main body inconsistency

There was much discussion regarding this.  There was consensus that the main DTD (in the Appendix) will include a comment that stating that ‘the FilteredQuery DTD from Section 8.2.? is inserted here.’

-PR3: We are missing ability to filter Organization by PostalAddress.

For example cant find all Organization in Boston. Is this phase 2?

There was consensus to add ‘PostalAddress’ to the rules 7 and 8 of section 8.2.9.  Thus the phrases are ‘Organization and PostalAddress UML classes’ (rule 7) and ‘Contact and PostalAddress UML classes’.

issueLog.pdf

Lisa Carnahan
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Information Technology Laboratory
100 Bureau Drive Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899
301-975-3362 voice
301-948-6213 fax
lisa.carnahan@nist.gov