Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts

[Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Quick afterthought: The Context Management function could always be used
to create registry metadata out of the content metadata, of course. :)

Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> I see this as a key decision to be made before proceeding too far ahead
> - that is, how much (and which) of the metadata prescribed in the CC
> spec should be represented as Registry metadata, and how much/which
> should be "coupled" with the representation of the Core Component
> entity.  One example would be a Core Component vs. BIE - should there be
> a registry metadata attribute (intrinsic or slot, whichever we finally
> decide on) called "EntityType" (or something similar) with values of
> "CC", "BIE", etc., or should this metadata be indicated within the
> serialization of the Core Component (by an EntityType tag, for example)
> with the registry considering it a "generic" Core Component entity?
> 
> Of course, there would be ramifications for querying - will queries have
> to get down into the content to find matches on certain parameters, vs.
> querying the registry metadata.
> 
> - Joe
> 
> Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> >
> > I think the best approach would be to define a generic XML structure to
> > house the component, with some sort of indication saying "this core
> > component is  atomic", or "this core component is a compount component,
> > made up of | derived from |etc ...".
> >
> > Haven't spent time on CCTS, but we may even be able to layer a namespace
> > onto RELAX-NG or W3C schema to serialize a component...
> >
> > -matt
> >
> > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> > >Regarding XML serialization:
> > >
> > >Given the metadata that is defined, wouldn't the XML representation of a
> > >Core Component, BIE, etc. amount to an XML fragment - i.e. a single tag
> > >such as <LocationName> or a set of tags such as <ResidenceAddress> and
> > >its contained elements?  I'm thinking that all of the metadata for the
> > >entity (as a whole) would be defined in the registry, not within the XML
> > >representation itself.  Please let me know if I'm missing something on
> > >this.  The caveat would be that it may not be well-formed XML.
> > >
> > >- Joe
> > >
> > >
> > >David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Message text written by Matthew MacKenzie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>I don't advocate people calling any home cooked XML or CSV a core
> > >>component in their XML registry...I think that will just muddy the waters.
> > >>
> > >><<<
> > >>
> > >>Matt,
> > >>
> > >>FYI - there are a dozen registries out there already with their
> > >>own XML formats for content.
> > >>
> > >>Having the ATG specify XML for an OASIS Registry IMHO
> > >>is a fraught path.
> > >>
> > >>My suggestion is a sub-team of Registry - and we have a
> > >>collaborative effort between the concerned parties:
> > >>
> > >>My list would include UBL, CAM, UDDI, CCTS, ATG, and
> > >>then other OASIS TC's that want to liaise, along with
> > >>invite to OAGI and DISA X12 to have an observer each.
> > >>
> > >>DW.
> > >>
> > >>

Attachment: Chiusano_Joseph.vcf
Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano