Re: [regrep] Core Components and version 3

[Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Thanks David.  I definitely agree that we should soon take a step back
and consider not only the CC Review subcommittee's work to date, but
also the CAM and CRI work.

Looking forward to the future...

Joe

David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> 
> 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>
> <

Attachment: Chiusano_Joseph.vcf
Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano