Re: [regrep] Core Components and XML Serialization - Which Approach?

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

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>