RE: [regrep] Standards approval process

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BEDINI Ivan RD-BIZZ-CAE [mailto:ivan.bedini@francetelecom.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:07 PM
> To: David Webber (XML)
> Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org; Farrukh Najmi; Breininger, Kathryn R
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Standards approval process
> 
> Hi David,
> Unfortunately we don't have the good XML format yet of course.
> but I can give you an example about a serialisation. 
> take the reusables components provided by UBL TC and try to 
> put them into the xml format proposed in the document. 
> I've not done that yet but I think that it could be hard to do.
> 
> Our approach :
> first question -> is the ebxml registry able to store all 
> CCTS information ? the answer is obviowsly Yes (this answer 
> was simple!).

I believe the question of which is first - storage or serialization - is very much a "religious" issue, so neither approach is "incorrect". OK, I'll 'fess up - I believe it is best to first define storage, then serialization (and have believed this for several years - I'm recalling some of our June 2003 CC-Review listserv discussions). But hey, that is just my opinion, and Duane's can't be wrong either. I see advantages and disadvantages from both sides - but I know that no one has ever done an in-depth analysis of these (we probably all could not agree on the analysis methodology!:)
 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World

> now, How we can do that? what registry objects we have to 
> define? is there a better general way to make that? this was 
> more hard to do. 
> 
> next step -> how to submit and retrieve CCs ? 
> There are several ways to serialise CCTS. could we use one 
> already existing format to do that or we need to create new one ? 
> for example we can't put every metadata information in a 
> natural way to XMI or NDR format (if someone has a different 
> advise, I will be happy to know that...). ebRIM seems to be 
> to complex to be readable for humans...
> So the answer seems to be yes, but for that I think that only 
> a UN/CEFACT group can do that.
> 
> 
> The goals :
> - to provide a definitively way to use an ebXML Registry to 
> storing CCs.
> - to define an API to submit, retrieve and find a set, or a 
> single, CCs.
> - to federate CCs between all existing registries. (future goal!)
> 
> (when we started the RepXML project we thought to find that here...).
>  
> 
> best regards,
> ivan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le lundi 17 janvier 2005 à 10:24 -0500, David Webber (XML) a écrit :
> > Ivan,
> > 
> > If you have some XML examples you can share with us that would be 
> > best.  Also - some brief notes on your approach and a quick 
> summary of 
> > the goals.
> > 
> > I definately think the document should include notes on approaches 
> > people are taking so that implementers can understand the 
> > opportunities and lessons learned.
> > 
> > Thanks, DW
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "BEDINI Ivan RD-BIZZ-CAE" <ivan.bedini@francetelecom.com>
> > To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Cc: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; "Breininger, Kathryn R"
> > <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>; "David Webber (XML)" 
> > <david@drrw.info>
> > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 4:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [regrep] Standards approval process
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > before to vote for this document I'd like to better 
> understand his 
> > > real utility.
> > > Actually we are working on UN/Cefact Registry specifications 
> > > proposition and we don't think that we will use the serialization 
> > > proposed in this document for several reasons.
> > > For example it doesn't seem to be CCTS compliant and 
> doesn't give us 
> > > a solution or a proposition on how we have to map the ccts 
> > > components to ebRIM.
> > >
> > > the more recent experiences on CCTS and RR give us some better 
> > > different solutions, and so is it possible to update the document 
> > > before to vote for that ?
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > ivan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le samedi 15 janvier 2005 à 10:56 -0500, David Webber 
> (XML) a écrit :
> > > > Farrukh,
> > > >
> > > > I concur with that.   In our recent work we're finding at least
> > > > one other way to approach this CCTS / RegRep- and I'm 
> sure other 
> > > > people will modify and adapt this significantly as they 
> get into 
> > > > really loading vocabularies into registry - and more - 
> and finding 
> > > > the speed bumps and comptability issues, etc.  Just for 
> starters - 
> > > > going in an out of Excel spreadsheet to XML and RegRep is one 
> > > > challenge - given the design teams are currently using Excel as 
> > > > their front door.
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest this as a informative notes report - would 
> work well 
> > > > at this point.  I'm not sure any of know what the real 
> answers are 
> > > > - but its clear we will be working much on this is 2005 - 
> > > > including all the CEFACT project work - and they also 
> may have yet 
> > > > another valid approach too (I see at least two other team there 
> > > > working this stuff).
> > > >
> > > > At the end of the day - this probably devolves down to 
> a core set 
> > > > of interoperable behaviours around a common set of 
> components in 
> > > > two or three different XML layouts and technqiues - 
> depending on 
> > > > what the problem domain is and the audience and their preferred 
> > > > toolsets.
> > > >
> > > > We certainly do not want to paint ourselves into a corner too 
> > > > early here.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, DW
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
> > > > To: "Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>
> > > > Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [regrep] Standards approval process
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Below is the OASIS standards approval process.  I 
> felt everyone
> > should
> > > > > >be familiar with this process as we continue 
> reviewing the RIM 
> > > > > >and RS
> > v.
> > > > > >3.0 specs with the intent to move them forward through the 
> > > > > >OASIS Standards process.
> > > > > 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standards_appr
> > > > > >oval
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I am embarrased to say that I opened this document only now 
> > > > > before my planned YES vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > I noticed that it uses the term "best practices 
> paper" to refer 
> > > > > to the paper. I think this would be sending a 
> confusing message. 
> > > > > At the risk of being a PITA may I suggest
> > a
> > > > > quick update that
> > > > > replaces "best practices pare" with "report" and we 
> then vote to
> > approve
> > > > > that version?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry to have to bother Duane with a request for 
> another update.
> > > > >
> > > > > If other team members think it is OK as is then I 
> will go along.
> > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Farrukh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed 
> from the 
> > > > > roster
> > of
> > > > the OASIS TC), go to
> > > >
> > 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> > > > roster of
> > the OASIS TC), go to
> > 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> > > roster of
> > the OASIS TC), go to
> > 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> 
>