RE: [regrep] Follow-ups

["MACIAS, Paul" <PMACIAS@lmi.org>]

Kathryn,

You have the actions represented correctly. I have made contact with CPPA TC and am in the process of getting the Messaging TC to indicate whether they will review the note for UDDI.
I'm also preparing a message for the Joint Committee to consider an ebXML taxonomy.  Not being a taxonomy expert, I'm working as best I can to introduce the concept and benefits as best I can.  Any help on presenting taxonomies would be greatly appreciated.  :-)

Thanks,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Breininger, Kathryn R [mailto:kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:05 PM
To: ebXML Regrep (E-mail)
Subject: [regrep] Follow-ups


I was reviewing previous e-mails, and wanted to follow-up on a few items.

We had and e-mail string with Paul regarding the Technical Note on UDDI as a registry for ebXML components.  From the last e-mail, it appears that his questions were addressed (see attachment), but I wanted to verify that we covered his concerns.  

Paul, from the e-mail string, it looked like you asked for input on specific items - Taxonomy (or common language in the various ebXML specs, specifically ebMS and ebXML CPPA) and the overviewURL element for linking to an ebXML location.  The concluding e-mail from you lists two steps: 1) make ebMS and CPPA TCs aware of the technical note and get feedback on how their specs were represented, and 2) taking the larger issue of a coordinated ebXML taxonomy (or vocabulary) to the Joint Committee to address.  The question on the overviewURL element was addressed with the recommendation that the TN refer to the latest version of each spec.  Does this accurately summarize the issues and resolutions?  Do you need any further input from us?  Please let me know if we need to add this to the agenda for our next telecon.
 <<RE: [regrep] Meeting reminder and agenda>> 
The XML Schema issue e-mail string stopped with a question, so I wanted to follow-up on that to see if it is resolved.  This is the one that recommended replacing choice with type substitution.  Monica had recommended that an iterative approach might be an option (see attachment).  Is this one resolved?  Does it need to be added to the agenda for our next telecon?
 <<Re: [regrep] [XML Schema issue] Replace choice with type substitution>> 
The last one I wanted to follow-up on is the One RegistryObject - Many ACPs proposal.  Farrukh presented two options, recommending the second one (see attachment).  Any additional input on this?  Does it need to be added to the agenda for our next telecon? 
 <<Re: [regrep] One RegistryObject - Many ACPs proposal>> 
Thanks!
Kathryn


Kathryn Breininger
CENTRAL Project Manager
Emerging Technologies
Boeing Library Services

425-965-0182 phone
425-237-3491 fax
kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com