Dean,
My sense is that you are mixing registry models and data models. The registry is multi disciplinary in that it supports identifying any artifact. CCTS provides specific details on ebXML constructs. Before getting disappointed, I would strongly encourage you to have a discussion with Duane Nickull who is heading up the registry effort to represent core components.
Mark R. Crawford
Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
--
LMI Government Consulting
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
703.917.7177 Phone
703.655.4810 Wireless
The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater
www.lmi.org
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Dean E. P. Hemopo <jdeanh@ihug.co.nz>
To: CRAWFORD, Mark <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
CC: ebXML Dev-List <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>; ebXML Dev Forum <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Mon Jul 19 05:37:20 2004
Subject: RE: what to go with ?
hello mark,
thats really disappointing. i think i will apply an intuitive application of the two. i have 34 days left to spec out the underlying data-structure for the ebXML Registry. its a timeframe i have placed on myself. i know there are already implementations of the ebXML Registry that are conformant with RIM v2.0, and thats what i need to run with. i am working on OAGIS for the next 2-3 days, and will then draw out the CCTS 2.01 view and RIM v.2, and see if there is a way of meeting both requirements. i will take Registry class in CCTS V.201, as RegistryObject RIM V.2 when not talking about Classifications, otherwise RegistryEntry in RIM V.2.
perhaps this is how it should be read, i do not know.
do you know how long i will have to wait ?
dean hemopo
auckland, new zealand
[J. Dean E. P. Hemopo] -----Original Message-----
From: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Monday, 19 July 2004 8:45 p.m.
To: jdeanh@ihug.co.nz; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: what to go with ?
Dean,
RIM is generic in the sense that it can store any artifact. CCTS is a specific artifact. What you are missing is the Registry work to specify exactly how to store Core Components that should be released soon.
Mark
________________________________
From: J. Dean E. P. Hemopo [mailto:jdeanh@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Sun 7/18/2004 10:05 PM
To: ebXML Dev-List; ebXML Dev Forum
Subject: what to go with ?
hello again,
now the class diagrams in CCTS v2.01 and RIM v2.0 differ insofar as
"RegistryObject" and "RegistryEntry" go. those two elements are in RIM v2.0
and CCTS uses "Registry" class instead of them. what do i do, which do i go
with.
or is it that i have not studied the class diagrams correctly ?
i like the CCTS version as it is more specific and unambiguous, except for
that issue.
dean hemopo
auckland, new zealand
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:
<http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS The list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: