OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[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.


(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;


(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.

tel;work:(703) 902-6923
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]