[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Reg Rep comments
Hi All, Bob and Joe are the only two who send me comments, their comments are included at the end of this email with some other comments. In my opinion ,and also Bob, we should ask to hold this spec until we receive the Registry Services spec, I found many technical issues with this spec, which may be resolve when we read the Registry Services. But any way here are some of the issues The summary of the Spec : Technical Issues: - The information Model does not clearly explain some of its major components and how they are related to each other ( such as packages and its components) - It is clearly assuming that the Object will contain behavior ( page 23 ) - Some disagreements about the scope of classification. - The use of the Association very overloaded - The choice of some of the components are very odd ( Postal address, contact ), what is special about them and why they are consider components and not just attributes like the rest of the metadata - It seams that the search will be done through a client program, not through a User Interface, Section 12.1.2 General Issues - Oasis reg rep spec is still in draft within the Oasis reg rep TC, it is not voted on yet by its committee, but it is mentioned in this spec in several places - Using the UML concepts of the interface is confusing for the reader who does not know UML, and will think it is an API - Missing or insufficient description in many on the sections. - The mention of inheritance in every sections implied that it has to be implemented as an object oriented -------------------------------------------------------- The collected comments ----------------------------- This document is lclearly in a good enough form to go out, but it is hard to review in the absence of the registry services specification, and I suspect that separating the two will make each harder to use for ebxml consumers and implementors. I would strongly recommend that they go out together for external review even if that means bending the silly rules; otherwise a lot of issues will arise from the info model that the services spec will presumably answer. At the very least after the other document gets published there needs to be an editorial pass to cross reference the two specs to reduce the self-inflicted pain caused by separating them. The document's usability would also be improved if the relationships to the OASIS registry spec and ISO 11179 were made explicit. Section 4.1 says that the spec leveraged both of these but the credibility of this work would be enhanced if that were documented. For example, Section 11 begins with the claim that the ebxml classification scheme is a simplified version of the OASIS one, and this needs to be justified given the criticism from Boeing about the limitations of uncontrolled keywords for classification. I completely agree with Boeing's point, and the ebxml model has to allow for one or more standard vocabularies. Some of the parts of the registry information model seem a little odd, especially contact, organization, and postal address, which have presumably been thought through more completely by Core Components. I can't imagine some of this information being very useful in the registry. For example, if Sun or Commerce One submit objects to an ebxml registry, it would surely be making a company or organizational submission, and individual contact info would never be part of this. I also am amused by the suggestion that the default phone number is the "land line" one. "Name" and "GUID" are contrasted but "user friendly context independent name" for the former isn't very precise. Minor nit -- some inconsistency in the use of "schema" as both a singular and plural form -- most notable in 5.1 and 5.3. I think the plural of schema is schemas (or schemata, if you're Greek or pedantic). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of this spec, as it is described on 4.1 Communicate what information is in the registry and how that information is organized - The information in the registry is the meta data for a submitting object, which can be a single object or a Package. The Package is an object with Associated objects, the spec does not clearly defined this relationship, which is one of the major keys to describe the information Model. The only information about the Package what is defined in 6.5, which says “Logically related ManagedObjects may be grouped into a Package” there is nothing to explain how they are related. - Interface Association 10.1, in the field summery and the Method Summary contains many confusing and misleading information, - ASSOCIATION TYPE_CLASSIFIED_BY, I don’t think the classification should be association, it is to classified the object, and each object can be classified using more than one classification scheme, using it as association is very confusing -Association Type_exteneds, one of many cases I could not understand this case, and there are no explanations what they means - Association Type implements, it is defined that the source object implements the behavior defined by the target object “ are these objects contain behavior???” - Context Sensitive Classification, 11.2.1, I don’t think the scope of this version of the regrep, is to defined this very complex case for the classification. - It is not clear how this information Model will support the companies’ profiles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UML diagram Throughout the spec, UML diagrams cause confusion. Because it uses "interface", some people may be confused in that it is actually the API of RegRep, They are in chapter 7 to 13. Also, it may misguide readers to the idea of which they have to implement the registry server with object oriented languages. OASIS There are several places that mention "OASIS Registry and Repository Model" such as in line 221, there is no official document of OASIS Registry and Repository yet, it is still private document for the Oasis TC. 3.2 Document Version History Get rid of all history before submitting to QR 3.5 Related Documents a) delete this. Business Domain Model is not submitted to QR 4.2 Caveats and Assumptions Delete whole section. The spec shouldn't be "living" and it has to be frozen at the publishing time. 5.3 What the Registry Information Model Does Line 250 and 251 are unclear. What is the meaning of "metamodel"? 5.4 How the Registry Information Model Works Line 254-256 are confusing. Some people may take this as a promotion of implementation in an object oriented way. 6 Registry Information Model: Public View Figure 1 - It is hard to read for the people who don't know UML. Managed Object and Package It is not clear how the package is composed of, and the relationship between Managed Object and Package AuditableEvent It is not clear what AuditableEvent means. No description about AuditableIdentity 7 Registry Information Model: Detail View IntrinsicObject and ExtrinsicObject It is not clear what the difference between them is. 8 Registry Audit Trail The word "audit" doesn't look fit to the actual purpose. It is hard to understand how those "audit-*" is used and why it is needed. Needs to be elaborated. 12.1.2 Ad Hoc Queries Based on Object Metadata And Content It looks like Query is performed not only the metadata but also the registered content. But that is not true. Searchable items should be metadata and the special content such as company profile only. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I have a few concerns, at this point, I really don't have any problems with releasing this for general ebXML comment. It's perhaps not perfect, but I don't see any reason to hold it back. (Heck, if it _were_ perfect, we wouldn't need any comment period!)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC