Re: [regrep] minutes of last meeting

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Lisa Carnahan wrote:
> 1. CC Review Update - the CC Review Subteam is continuing its work in
> pulling out the registry requirements/expectations from the CC Technical
> Specification.  The Subteam is developing a table that defines each
> requirement.  For each requirement the subteam is further defining how the
> V2 RIM/RS satisfies the requirement, or indicates if the specs do not
> satisfy the requirement.  Currently the Subteam does not see any
> 'showstoppers'.  The Subteam meets the Wednesday (2:00 Eastern) prior to
> the TC meeting on Thursday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lisa et al:

I have some concerns about the above statement.  The CC team just
released v 1.80 of their current spec which utilizes an outdated UML RIM
diagram from the old Registry Specification.  

There are also some issues that the UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
team has identified as use cases for registries based on unique needs of
core components and BIE's that the CC team has not acknowledged yet.

I would therefore like a representative from the Archtiecture team to be
involved with this process if possible.  

From what our initial analysis is,  we believe that the Registry,
specifically the associations and classifications, is adequate for
meeting all the needs of ebXML Core Components and BIE's.  

The CC team has some important questions posed to them which they
haven;t answered yet.  The most critical one is "What does the Registry
yeild or point to when it is asked for a Core Component (or BIE)?"  We
have suggested an XML artifact and others have suggested a UML artifact.
Both are different expressions of the same artifact but the UML will not
meet the needs of the users by itself.  The UML, with the Regsitry
Information Model, will meet the needs of the users IF, and only if,
there is also an XML expression of the same artifact that is pointed at
by the regsitry via way of an "Association".

Some things the archtiecture team has identified as use cases are:

1. Querying the Regsitry for all BIE's that are associated by virtue of
the fact they were created from a single Core Component (needed for
design time to avoid rampant and uncontrolled duplication of BIE's)

2.  Querying the Regsitry for a BIE and finding what other BIE's are
related to it by way of RIM associations.

3.  Finding a parent (Master) copy of a Core Component in another
registry as a result of a registry query.

There are more but I don;t want to bore/excite you all with the details
as of yet.

Best wishes

Duane Nickull

> 
> 2. Method for handling public comments - The TC developed a method for
> handling public comments regarding the V2 RIM/RS.  (As of the meeting,
> there had been only one set of comments.)  Comments will be resolved by a
> subteam of TC members using a mailing list.  Initial volunteers for the
> subteam are Nikola, Farrukh and Sanjay.  Farrukh volunteered to identify
> the comments and uniquely number them. (Duane's comments came via our
> regular mailing list, rather than the official comment list - therefor, we
> need to be sure to formally identify comments from all sources.)
> 
> 3, V3 Priorities - The team reviewed the list of candidate items for V3
> work.  Neil Smith will make (has made?) the agreed changes to the
> list.  Most of the changes were either renaming changes or consolidation
> changes.  The following members listed their priorities/interests based on
> the list (prior to any changes):
> Farrukh - 12, 7, 18, 5, 8
> Nikola - 11
> Sanjay - 10, 6, 15
> Lisa and Sally - 3
> 
> Anyone else with an opinion regarding priorities should send email to the list.
> 
> 3. Criteria for determining V3 Work items - The TC discussed some
> subjective criteria that we should use in discussing our priorities of work
> items.  The following list was developed: (no implied relevance to order)
> -Maturity of base specifications on which our specifications may rely.
> -Ease in which the item may be addressed given the V2 specs (low lying fruit)
> -Level of effort required versus payoff of addressing
> -The Use case for the item
> -Level of interest by TC members to address item
> 
> 4. We will be discussing (and hopefully) making initial decisions regarding
> our top items at the next conference call.  Our goal is to have initial
> proposals done by April 15.
> 
> 5 Next conference call is Thursday, March 7th.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

-- 
CTO, XML Global Technologies
****************************
Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/
ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/