[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts
Chiusano Joseph wrote: >Quick afterthought: The Context Management function could always be used > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to create registry metadata out of the content metadata, of course. :) > Unless you comment otherwise, I will assume that above is a typo and what you really meant is "Content Management". > >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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC