Subject: Re: [regrep] Core Components and XML Serialization - Which Approach?
Joseph: Matt MacKenzie, David Webber and I implemented this stuff 2 years ago and out that each has merits. The problem you have identified is that once a CC or BIE is copied, serialized and transmitted to a remote location, it looses its' RIM metadata (context). That includes classifications, associations etc. Therefore, if CC's and BIE's are to be stored in a registry, users need to either copy the appropirate RIM data with it, or duplicate the RIM data in the Registry Objects itself (an un-elegant solution IMHO). IN the Wrox book 'Professonal ebXML Foundations" a chapter was written identifying this problem and a solution. I still believe the solution lies somewhere ins a hybrid approach. This could involve wrapping the actual Registry Object with a RIM Metadata envelope before it is serlialized and transmitted. Duane Nickull Chiusano Joseph wrote: > All, > > I've been thinking more about this issue...that is, given a set of > metadata attributes (such as those specified in the Core Components > spec), which should be part of the RIM (through a binding) and which > should be "pushed down" into the contents - i.e. as a "wrapper" for the > core component or associated entity. > > For example, lets say we need to provide for the following metadata for > a Core Component (this is all hypothetical): > > - Object Type (Basic Core Component (BCC), Basic Business Information > Entity (BBIE), etc.) > - Creation Date > > And let's say the Core Component contained "Contact Information" for an > individual. In general, there are 2 approaches to representing this > metadata (let's say for simplicity that you cannot split the metadata up > - that is, you must include all metadata in one approach): > > (1) As part of serialization > (2) As part of RIM > > Approach #1 would look as follows (note "CoreComponentMetadata" header, > with data in "CoreComponentData" element): > > <CoreComponent> > <CoreComponentMetadata> > <ObjectType>BCC</ObjectType> > <CreationDate>2003-01-03</CreationDate> > </CoreComponentMetadata> > <CoreComponentData> > <ContactInformation> > <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName> > ...more elements here... > </ContactInformation> > </CoreComponentData> > </CoreComponent> > > Approach #2 would look as follows: > > - ObjectType and CreationDate are RIM attributes > - Serialization looks as follows (note no "CoreComponentMetadata" > element): > > <CoreComponent> > <CoreComponentData> > <ContactInformation> > <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName> > ...more elements here... > </ContactInformation> > </CoreComponentData> > </CoreComponent> > > My question is: What are the distinct advantages and disadvantages to > each of these approaches? And which previals (if any) as the most > advantageous/preferred approach to representing Core Components and > their associated entities? > > Looking forward to some great insight...Thanks! > > Joe -- VP Strategic Relations, Technologies Evangelist XML Global Technologies **************************** ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>