RE: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[Dave Welsh <dmwelsh@microsoft.com>]

I'd wait to see what the BP requirements call for, but for CC
that'you're your call. Rest looks fine except for the CAM stuff, which
is / has not been part of the ebXML work nor is it in line with the
UN/CEFACT UMM approach on that subject..

For the rest, looks like a game plan.
-Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:08 AM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Would anyone be willing to comment on the summary below (affirmative
or
> otherwise)?  Do we think that it accurately reflects where we stand
> right now, from a high-level perspective?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> > I've taken a shot summarizing the various aspects of this discussion
to
> > date, to serve as a sort of "checkpoint" of where we are at.  Below
I've
> > listed 5 high-level topics (in no particular order) that I think
have
> > grown out of our excellent discussions here, and a very high-level
> > snapshot of where we appear to be regarding that topic.
> >
> > I hope this information is helpful for all, and look forward to
feedback
> > on its accuracy.  I will be happy to update this summary as
necessary so
> > that we ensure that we capture the picture accurately for all.
> >
> > TOPIC #1 - Representation Within Registry (Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic):
> >
> > - Most seem to favor extrinsic representation, with a defined
binding to
> > the registry;
> >
> > - Question remains as to who would create such a binding - our TC,
the
> > CCTS Team, or a combination (us "consulting" to them and them having
a
> > liaison on our TC);
> >
> > - Can use Content Management mechanism and create a style sheet
indexer
> > for Core Component entities;
> >
> > TOPIC #2 - Context/Assembly:
> >
> > - Can be defined by the CAM TC, as this is their focus;
> >
> > TOPIC #3 - Serialization Format:
> >
> > - Can be defined by our TC(?), perhaps using CRI as a starting
point;
> >
> > - David Webbers's "Registry Enabling of Business Metadata Semantics"
> > presentation offers excellent concepts for serialization as well as
> > context/assembly;
> >
> > - CCTS team would not need to be involved in the definition of the
> > seralization format, because they define the syntax-neutral
> > representation of Core Components, not the syntax-specific
> > representations;
> >
> > TOPIC #4 - Core Components Specification:
> >
> > - It is possible that we may request updates to the Core Components
> > specification based on our review of it;
> >
> > - We will need to decide how to communicate our requests to the CCTS
> > Team and work with them toward a solution that is beneficial for all
> > parties;
> >
> > TOPIC #5 - Timing:
> >
> > - Regardless of what Registry specification version this is included
in,
> > we believe it would take at least 4 months (probably closer to 6) to
> > define the registry metadata representations (whether intrinsic or
> > extrinsic), context/assembly, and serialization format.
> >
> > - It is still to be determined if this functionality will be
included in
> > the Registry V3 specs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
>