[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Core Components - Revisited
Hi All, Several months ago, we had some discussions on the possibility of our performing a verification test for the most recent Core Components specification. There has been some recent discussion on ebXML-dev about this, so we would like to revisit this topic to confirm our direction and the various aspects of this discussion. Our objective is to move forward with the verification test, if we are all comfortable with the proposed approach. Below I've listed 3 topics that we discussed several months ago, along with what we (in my impression) decided for each topic. At the end, I outline what our direction appears to be. Please review and provide feedback as you wish, especially regarding whether or not you agree with the direction outlined at the bottom, and - if not - why not. Please reply as soon as possible, so that we can move forward in a short amount of time. TOPICS: (1) Architectural approach: (a) This involves the "hardcoded RIM metadata" vs. "binding" discussion; (b) We decided that it would be best to create a Core Components RIM Binding that is not tied to a particular version; (2) Creation of binding: (a) This involves "who" would create such a binding; (b) We discussed the possibility of the CCTS team creating the binding, and decided that - for various reasons - the Registry TC should create this binding (through the Core Components Review TC); (3) "Pure RIM" vs. Serialization: (a) This involves whether the Core Components metadata attributes should be specifed purely in the RIM binding, in a Core Component serialization, or a combination of both; (b) Using a serialization approach would bring up the issue of who would create such a serialization (our TC, CCTS, another TC?); - The UN/CEFACT ATG group is creating a serialization, but it is not for the definition of Core Components (it is for the representation of Core Components in XML instance documents) (c) Through listserv discussions, it appeared that there was no compelling reason to use the serialization approach; (d) Specifying all metadata attributes in a RIM binding would also allow us to move forward with the Core Components specification verification test because a serialization would not need to be defined; OUR DIRECTION APPEARS TO BE: (1) A RIM binding should be created; (2) This binding should be created within the Core Components Review subcommittee of the Registry TC; (3) A Core Components serialization will not be defined (all metadata attributes will be specified in a RIM binding) Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks! Joe
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]