[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: FW: [regrep] FW: Comments solicited -- ISO/IEC CD2 11179-3 andISO/IEC 19763 Part 3
Team here are my initial comments on this spec... Overall, it is a very well put together spec. The way to think of ISO 11179 is that it describes a registry/repository in even more abstract terms than ebXML RegRep. In the ideal world ebXML RegRep standard simply provides a concrete binding for ISO 11179. However, in the real world the specs have been done by different people with limited alignment. Historically, we have taken 11179 specs as input and tried to align with them as best as possible. Complicating things are other competing specs like ISO 19135 for Registration Procedures. I think is is a very commendable thing that the 11179 fold and specifically Bruce Bargmeyer have taken the time to get our input. We should ask for their input in our latest specs as well. The comments below are based on a very quick review. * Person <=> Contact model mistmatches o Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class that Organization and Person extend o Add address, phone etc. to Party. We learned the value of this after some trial and error o Take away title from Person and instead make it an attribute of association with an organization (titles or roles are in the context of a relationship with some organization) * Why have separate attribute for registration_authority_identifier. Better to represent registration_authority via an Organization and use orgs identifier * 6.1.2.2 Scoped_Identifier: Suggest defining a URN naming scheme instead of current spec * 6.2 Designation and Definition region: This clause is very difficult to follow. Its not clear what a Designatable_Item is. Suggets providing examples and clearer definition * 7.1 Registration metamodel region: This section should be aligned with ISO 19135 * 7.1.2 Registration Record, Stewardship Record, Submission_Record: RegRep TC needs to see if these are relevant to our Registration Procedures work * 7.1.6.1 attachment: This is so much better a name than RepositoryItem (sigh: why did we not think of it) * 8.1 8.1 Concept System region: ClassificationScheme <=> Concept_System, ClassificationNode <=> Concept is another terminology mis-alignment. Perhaps that is OK since 11179 is meant to be more generic than ebXML RegRep * 8.1.2.3 Assertion: Need more examples or clearer description of how Assertions play a role in a concept system * 8.1.2.4.1 Description of Relation: Need more examples or clearer description of how Relations play a role in a concept system * 8.2.2 Classes in the Classification region:Good alignment in Classification region * 9 Binary_Relations Package: This fuctionality needs to be studied for relevance in ebXML RegRep * 10 Data Description Package: This fuctionality needs to be included in a future version of ebXML RegRep * 10.4 Measurement region: This fuctionality needs to be included in a future version of ebXML RegRep * I was unable to find a place in the spec where Association support and Association metamodel was described. Did anyone else find it? * Is there a comments list where we can send any future comments? * What public mailing lists can one signup to to stay informed of progress of the spec? Thanks again to Bruce and 11179 team for soliciting our inputs. Lets discuss these comments later today in our meeting. Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: > Please note: this is one agenda item I want to be sure we have time to > discuss, so will be placing it at the top of our agenda. Please review > materials (see below) prior t o our meeting. -- Regards, Farrukh Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]