[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry
Chiusano Joseph wrote: ><Excerpt> >If we are talking about interoperability of CC then that is >out-of-scope for this TC IMO. ></Excerpt> > >Strong and respectfully disagree. The CCTS Team (as we are all under >the same "ebXML" umbrella) is looking to us to ensure that multiple >registries that interact by querying Core Components, copying Core >Components, etc. can do so in a uniform and well-defined manner. > It is fine for them to be "looking to us" as consultants. >I >believe this is critical for future adoption of our specifications. > But who owns / defines it and which spec includes the details, it is an independent question. >This involves not only the representation of metadata within the >registry (extrinsic or intrinsic - we are leaning toward extrinsic), but >also the serialization format (see below). > Hi Joe, You have captured in the summary: <Joe's Summary> 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); </Joe's Summary> I favour an extrinsic representation, with a defined binding to the registry. I agree that someone needs to define a binding of CC to Registry. I agree that we should act as consultants to them and they have an active liason in our TC. I respectfully and strongly disagree that we should be the owners of the binding or should include it in our specifications. I fully support the idea of someone doing a ebXML Registry Best Practice paper on "Registration/Discovery of CC in an ebXML Registry" and teh ebXML Registry TC approving it. Let me know where you think we disagree. > ><Excerpt> >Why is CC serialization our problem, anymore than BPSS, CPA or Foo >serialization? >Serialization of anything but RIM types is absolutely out-of-scope for >us. ></Excerpt> > >Also strongly and respectfully disagree. It's not that it's our >"problem" - but that there are dependencies between the serialization >format and the registry metadata (as I noted in a recent posting). I >agree that it probably is not our (the Registry TC) purview, but we >should be working closely with whoever defines this. And it would >definitely be out of scope for the CCTS Team. > >- Joe > >Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > >>David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote: >> >> >> >>>Joe, >>> >>>As a compromise here - I'd suggest that we decide that >>>we need some conformance around serialization to >>>aid interoperability - >>> >>> >>> >>Interoperability of what though? The registry is interoperable just >>fine. If we are talking about interoperability of CC then that is >>out-of-scope for this TC IMO. >> >> >> >>>but that we put out a call for >>>submissions to the group - for suggestions on >>>the actual serialization. >>> >>> >>> >>Why is CC serialization our problem, anymore than BPSS, CPA or Foo >>serialization? >>Serialization of anything but RIM types is absolutely out-of-scope for us. >> >>-- >>Regards, >>Farrukh >> -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC