Re: FW: ebXML Entity Classes - Resend

[Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>]

Mike

> The R&R specs that went out
> recently not only knew nothing of CC metadata, but did not even have a
specific
> type identifier for CCs.  It seems to me that the most efficient, well
> architected scheme for an ebXML registry would have the registry itself be
aware
> of CC metadata.   This would greatly facilitate search, retrieval, re-use,
> etc.   Under the current scheme it seems that the registry would be
ignorant of
> CC metadata, and would force all responsibilities for dealing with CCs
onto the
> client.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?  How did the joint meetings in
> Vancouver with R&R resolve this?

We pointed out this fact last November, formalized our problems as a set of
use cases in December and restated them in Vancouver in February. It was
accepted that some additional "classes of registered object" would be needed
to manage core components. It was not considered necessary to extend the
reg-rep metadata as most of the "additional classifiers" could be defined in
terms of reg-rep classification schemes, but it was acknowledged that the
use cases represented in our December document would need to be met by the
revised API, which would need to allow for nesting of requests in some
cases.

Martin Bryan