Re: [regrep] Core Components and version 3

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Joe,

I would strongly concur here.  

It's one thing to say "include core components" - its quite
another to specify exactly what that means?!?

The previous CRI (core component realization)
work under the CC sub-team hit the same truck.  Just when they had spent
six months building workable mechanisms - the CC spec' itself had
completely changed the reference model and terminology - thereby
largely invalidating the work.

However the concepts and principles remain the same.  Having been
working on this now for two years - it looks like we will at last be
able to get closure on this in 2003 here.

Namely Registry support for XML mechanisms to store and
retrieve semantics on core components and consistent XML
structures to enable this.

The path I am seeing is a joint effort - the OASIS CAM team is 
delivering mechanisms to do core component assembly and
BIE realization in XML.  That's a huge jump forward on the earlier
CRI work - that really struggled to find an easy way to do
assemblies.  And as CAM is a sister team under OASIS - that
is good news in terms of spec' development.

So the other peice is then representation of semantics in XML.
Again - as you point out - now we may finally have a stable
core component specification - deriving XML structures to
store the semantics in beckons.  Certainly the old CRI work
gives lots of pointers there - and lets not forget in addition to
core components - the CRI work was providing migration of
legacy industry dictionaries as well - since they have tons
of semantics they want in a registry - that they do not want 
to lose.

And then let us not forget that the UML/UMM folks also
have modelling support concerns that must be
accommodated by any technical approach adopted.

Anyway - before you stick me with a spear labelled 
"Manipulating the process for his own goals" - ouch!

I hope I am making points here with broad appeal and
that in due course we can address these in a proper
collaborative and successful way together.

I'm very encouraged that the technical tools are
within our reach.

Thanks, DW.
=====================================================
Message text written by Chiusano Joseph
> 
<Snip>
2) I have discussed this Mark Crawford of the Core Components Technical
Specification (CCTS). He relayed strong concerns that the CCTS members
had some time
ago been promised that the ebXML Registry specification would include
Core Components in version 3 and that the participants of CCTS would
likely look disfavorably on
version 3 otherwise.
</Snip>
<