Summary of proposed RIM changes

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Here is a quick summary of proposed changes to the best of my
recollection (Len, please correct if I missed anything):

-Replace all interfaces with classes to make it clearer what are
attributes Vs. relationship methods. This is aimed at making the RIM
clearer and easy to understand (at the expense of being less object
oriented).

-Move several classes up the hierarchy in RIM Fig 2 to reduce number of
attributes they carry. We referred to this as putting them on a diet
plan.
    -Move all sub-classes of IntrinsicObject (except Package) under
RegistryObject.
    -Move Package under RegistryEntry (sibling of ExtrinsicObject)
    -Eliminate IntrinsicObject all together
    -Eliminate Versionable and moved majorVersion/minorVersion as
attributes in RegistryEntry

-Move support for packaging, external linking, external identification,
classification, slots etc. (proposed term dynamic metadata) from
RegistryEntry up to RegistryObject. This now makes RegistryObject the
central class in RIM Fig 2.

-Move objectType attribute from RegistryEntry to RegistryObject

-Add some new classes:
    -Add ClassificationScheme as a sub-class of RegistryEntry (and
sibling of Package and ExtrinsicObject). This class is expected to
replace root level ClassificationNodes in a classification scheme. This
allows for scheme specific metadata to be defined in one class for a
scheme. Rest of classification stuff is unchanged.

-Proposed supporting multiple Organizations related to a RegistryObject
by way of an Association class. Previously only one was allowed (SO).
Now we can have as many as we want with initial focus on Approving
Organization (Is that right Len?)

Executive Summary
--------------------

The RIMs cast of characters (classes) does not change under the joint
proposal, other than one new member ClassificationScheme. The roles
played by them are the same and their relationships to each other are
the same. What changes under the proposal is that they carry fewer
attributes.

To use a people analogy from our TC, after the proposed changes we will
be the same people, play the same roles, and have the same relationships
with each others. However, we would all  be slimmer, more agile and
hopefully better looking :-)

--
Regards,
Farrukh


"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> Can you please provide a short summary of the changes/compromises that
> were made.  This would help us greatly.Thanks, Joel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: tom Rhodes
> Subject: Call Tomorrow
> Hello All,
>
> As many of you know, throughout the ebXML effort Len Gallagher from
> NIST had raised serious concerns regarding the ebXML information model
> and services.  Most of these issues were raised prior to our ebXML
> meeting in Vancouver.  At that meeting, the committee decided to defer
> resolution on many of these issues until after Phase I.  So here we
> are in Phase II.
>
> As those who attended the Vancouver meeting know, Farrukh Najmi (and
> others) had serious concerns regarding many of Len's issues.    It
> became apparent to me that some benefit may be derived if I put Len
> and Farrukh  in a room for a day or so to discuss Len's issues.   So
> we did just that.
>
> Last week Len, Farrukh, Nikola Stojanovic, and I met for a day and a
> half to discuss Len's recurring issues.  The meeting was extremely
> productive in that many issues were resolved to all parties'
> satisfaction (sort of).   The attached file represents two proposals
> for changing the information model and inheritance diagrams for the
> RIM.  (We additionally started a list of bugs that were identified
> during the discussion.  I'll provide that in a separate message.)
>
> Please recognize that the attached documents do not represent
> consensus of the OASIS/ebXML Registry TC.  Currently the attached
> documents are based on the opinions of 3 TC members.  (My role was
> more of a facilitator than a TC member.)  We will discuss these
> proposals during the conference call tomorrow.  These proposals will
> be accepted only if we achieve positive consensus within the TC.
>
> I have a number of other items for the agenda; I'll try and send you
> email regarding them before the meeting.
>
> Call-in information:  NOTE: THIS NUMBER IS DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST
> CALL.
>
> CALL DATE:         AUG-09-2001  (Thursday)
> > CALL TIME:         04:00 PM EASTERN TIME
> > DURATION:              2 hr
> > USA Toll Free Number: 888-566-5920
> > USA Toll Number: +1-630-395-0252
> >  PASSCODE: 13852
> >  LEADER:            Ms Lisa Carnahan
>
> --lisa
begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh Najmi
end:vcard