Team here are my revised 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.
- 5.1.3 Contact, 5.1.5 Individual: Person <=> Contact model
mistmatches
- Suggest aligning with regrep with a common Party class that
Organization and Person extend
- Add address, phone etc. to Party
- 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)
- 5.1.14 Registration_Authority_Identifier: Why have separate
attribute for registration_authority_identifier. Better to
representregistration_authority via an Organization and use orgs
identifier
- 6.1.2.2 Scoped_Identifier: Suggest defining a URN naming scheme
instead of current spec
- 6.1.2.4 Slot: Thanks for the good alignment here
- 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
- Does the spec have something analogous to ebXML RegRep
RegistryPackage? If not consider adding it
- There does not seem to be anything analogous to RegRep
InternationalString/LocalizedString or how to do internationalization
of content. For an international standard this is important to include.
Consider aligning with 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.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
4CA074FFE64C114B9DEC89701310DCF2090CAD3D@XCH-NW-1V2.nw.nos.boeing.com"
type="cite">
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
|