[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [regrep] Relationship of ebXML RegRep 4 specification to similar work
I received some valuable comments on " Relationship of ebXML RegRep 4 specification to similar work" and future submission to ISO from Klaus (CCed)
In light of these comments here is a revised statement I propose. Klaus and others please comment. Thanks.
OASIS ebXML RegRep 4 specifications are newer versions of the following specifications that have previously been approved by ISO/TC 154:
ISO/IEC 19763, Information Technology -- Metamodel Framework for Interoperability (MFI) defines additional abstract models for registration of services, processes, roles, goals etc. OASIS ebXML RegRep 4 provides a concrete registry and repository standard capable of registering all types of artifacts. ebXML RegRep TC has collaborated with the respective working groups for ISO/IEC 11179 and ISO/IEC 19763 during the development of our respective specifications.
Extension profiles of OASIS ebXML RegRep 4 may be defined in future to provide a concrete binding for ISO/IEC 11179 and ISO/IEC 19763.
On the ISO submission topic Klaus has offered to help provide guidance and facilitation when we and OASIS are ready for the submission (sometime after OASIS approval). He has also clarified that we can submit RegRep standalone from other ebXML specifications since there is no dependency upon them.
@Klaus: thank you for your valuable comments and we look forward to working with you and ISO/TC 154 in the near future.
-------- Original Message --------
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote: > To the best of my knowledge the only reason version 3 was not submitted to TC 154 for ISO approval is due to lack of clarity on whether it had to be coordinated with other ebXML specs or whether it could be submitted stand-alone. Since each spec was on an independent timeline RegRep TC members were not sure of the mechanics of submission to TC 154. Hi Farrukh, There is no rule which requires that all parts of a set of ISO standards/specifications must be submitted and/or updated at the same time. Since the ebXML specs under ISO 15000 are maintained by different TCs, one would not expect them all to be updated at the same time. There is an exception, if certain parts have a dependency between each other, than they should be submitted at the same time. For example your two parts may have such a dependency and therefore should be submitted at the same time, however if the other parts are independent, such as CCTS, part 5, they can be updated any time. > We definitely want to have ISO approval for RegRep 4 and I would like some guidance on the standalone vs. independent submission. See above. > I would be grateful if you can provide any guidance on the mechanics of submission to ISO. That's a simple one, when you are ready, contact me and I will inform our secretariat to start the process by contacting the appropriate party to get the paperwork going. > We hope that RegRep 4 will reach OASIS approval by Feb 2012. After that we would like to pursue submission to ISO. Thanks for the time estimate. We will be more than happy to process afterwards. BTW, currently parts 3 & 4 are TSs, as in Technical Specifications. TC 154 agree last week that Part 5 should be submitted as an IS instead of a TS, IS standing for "International Standard". The requirement is a bit more strict in that the document format and certain content must confirm to the ISO directives. This is done via a special editing team and ISO editor, and does takes some time as it will progress through a number of ballot stages. The advantage is that many governmental departments will only implement ISs. If your group feels that is something they may want to do to, we can figure out what it entails in more details. > As for relationship to ISO/TS 15000-3:2004 and ISO/TS 15000-4:2004 we did not include it since it was more than one version ago. I will bring up both issues in our next RegRep TC meeting. > > Would it be OK for me to forward this conversation to RegRep TC or should we keep it p2p? No objection from my side. If this helps in building a better understanding between the two TCs and building a good relationship, that would be great. > Thank you for raising these important issues and please let me know if you have any suggestions related to RegRep 4 approval at OASIS or submission to ISO. Your are welcome, if you need further clarification on what I have provided so far, please feel free to contact me again. Regards, Klaus -- Klaus-Dieter Naujok, ISO/TC 154 Chair Processes, data elements and documents in commerce, industry and administration