Subject: RE: [regrep] RE: ebXML deployment templates
Indeed they are the same - you just "specialized" the defs of these terms for ebRR, which is fine.
Consider the definitions I sent as generic definitions that apply to any DPT (they are actually slightly different from those we used in current DPTs drafts for ebMS, CPPA, ebBP, as they stress a bit more the difference between dept profile, and dept profile template, as these two types of docs are sometimes confusing).
From: BEDINI Ivan
Hi Jacques, Hi Pim,
Currently for ebRR DPT draft they are (section 1.4) :
Deployment Profile Template: Document that lists the concepts in the source specification that may be adopted by a user community, that identifies content elements (e.g. ebRIM object types) the format and/or value of which may be further standardized by a community, and that also identifies specifics objects and taxonomies under which the source specification should be used, and selected by a user community for a specific domain.
Deployment Profile (or Deployment Guide): Document that is an instance of the Deployment Profile Template. It defines which concept should / should not be used by a community for a specific domain, which format or value some content elements should comply with.
The source specification, or source model, and User community has the same meant.
These concepts are largelly based on the ebMS DPT rev. 1.1 and IMO they are basically the same.
Aren't they for you?
Pim and all:
That is a fair summary.
Please find a summary below some terminology defs that explain the concept of Deployment Template - as used in introduction to all Deployment Profile Templates (DPT) we defined so far (ebMS, CPPA, ebBP).
Source Specification: The specification or standard that is being profiled.
User Community: A group of users, e.g. within a supply-chain industry, the members of which decide to make a similar usage of the source specification in order to be able to interoperate.
Deployment Profile (or Deployment Guide): Document that is an instance of the Deployment Profile Template. It defines which options of the standard should / should not be used by this community, which format or value some content elements should comply with, and under which operating conditions the standard must be used by this community.
Deployment Profile Template: Document that provides guidance to a user community when defining a Deployment Profile. Several Deployment Profiles may be generated by different user communities for the same standard, and it is desirable that they all reuse the same meta-data, and same structure, so that it become easier to for a user community to understand the terms under which they may or may not interoperate with another user community. The Template associated with this standard lists the options in the source specification that may be selected by a user community, identifies content elements the format and/or value of which may be further standardized by a community, and also identifies typical operating conditions under which the source specification may be used, and selected by a user community.
As requested, the current list of (draft) ebXML deployment templates is:
1. Messaging (Wenzel/Durand)
2. Business Process (Wenzel/Durand)
3. Collaboration Protocols (Durand/Wenzel)
4. Registry (Bedini/Najmi/Stojanovich)
The first three of these are developed by the OASIS ebXML IIC TC, and
co-authored by the same people, so they are very similar in structure,
presentation and organization.
The registry deployment template is developed by the Registry TC, and is a
There is no document at the moment about profiling CCTS, although there is
some working on CCTS and registry.
There is an idea in the IIC to package all templates in one set, and start
the OASIS standardization process for them. Among the questions to answer
- Is your TC interested in co-submitting the registry template along with
the others in a four-part set?
- If yes, do the templates need to be more similar in structure/style than
they currently are?
- If yes, how is the editorial work to do this organized?
- Are there sufficient cross-references, and are the documents consistent?
- What other editorial work would need to be done to complete this
specification (e.g. an introductory part 0)?
Jacques, feel free to comment on this; I attended the registry call to talk
about this, and gave the above summary of what you discussed at the JC
Pim van der Eijk
Sent: 02 March 2006 18:43
Subject: [regrep] Groups - ebXML Registry TC telecon meeting (Conference
This meeting was cancelled due to lack of attendance. Next meeting is March
16th at 8:00 sm PT.
-- Ms Kathryn Breininger
ebXML Registry TC telecon meeting (Conference Call) has been cancelled by Ms
Date: Thursday, 02 March 2006
Time: 08:00am - 09:30am PT
This event is one in a list of recurring events.
Other event dates in this series:
Thursday, 20 October 2005, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 03 November 2005,
08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 17 November 2005, 08:00am to 09:30am PT
Thursday, 01 December 2005, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 15 December
2005, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 22 December 2005, 08:00am to 09:30am
PT Thursday, 12 January 2006, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 02 February
2006, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 16 February 2006, 08:00am to 09:30am
PT Thursday, 16 March 2006, 08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 30 March 2006,
08:00am to 09:30am PT Thursday, 13 April 2006, 08:00am to 09:30am PT
View event details:
PLEASE NOTE: If the above link does not work for you, your email
application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to
copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web