Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Rather than getting into a debate here about CAM, I believe that Content 
Assembly is outside the scope of ebXML Registry work and is the purview 
of content assembly tools. The only context I can think of for content 
assembly being discussed in ebXMl Registry TC is if there are any 
registry requirements necessary to support content assembly.

Joe's summary is an great attempt at capturing the key points of view. 
However, not every thing captured in that summary necessarily belongs in 
ebXML Registry TC. I propose we focus our discussion first by defining 
what is *IN* vs *OUT* of scope for the CC registration/discovery 
discussion. Right now I feel we are meandering a bit too wide.

Am I off base here?

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh



David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:

>Dave,
>
>Note - UMM is nothing to do with CAM - since UMM is nothing
>to do with XML - rather stating the obvious - like saying 
>fertilizer has nothing to do with Origami - but paper is made
>from wood.
>
>Anyway - since UMM has nothing to do with the topic of
>CC serialization - I'm at a loss to understand why you
>said any of this at all.
>
>CAM is about content assembly - and therefore works 
>with Registry, Webservices, EDI, OAG BODs,
>RosettaNet, UBL et al - and can be used with ebXML as 
>well. 
>
>The fact that we can use it for CC serialization
>is perfectly acceptable - just like using XPath,
>XQuery or any other XML technology component.
>
>Cheers, DW.
>====================================================
>Message text written by Dave Welsh
>  
>
>>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..<
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>  
>