RE: Classifications

[srh@us.ibm.com]

|| The biggest current problem in the TRP workgroup concerning header
|| definitions is the lack of a design view that
|| shows what responsible "layer" of implementation would "own" which
fields.
||
|| <stn>I am not clear about what is being referred to here, especially
|| regarding ownership.  Are you referring to what "fields" are applicable
|| within a given business process (ref: implementation) or is this
something
|| completely different?</stn>

|I imagine that the issue is what metadata is to be provided by the SO
|and which by the RA (and in some cases it could be provided first by
|the SO and then changed by the RA).  For 11179, there are tables in
|Part 6 showing who's responsible for what.

Correct.

Scott R. Hinkelman
IBM Austin
SWG Java Solutions
XML/Java Standards Architecture
Office: 512-823-8097 TL793-8097
Home: 512-930-5675
Cell: 512-940-0519
srh@us.ibm.com
Fax: 512-838-1074



Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net> on 04/19/2000 04:36:25 PM

To:   ebxml-regrep@lists.oasis-open.org,
      Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  RE: Classifications




| Scott,
| Good start.
| - Suggest Format should have a version (example: XMI 1.1)
|
| <stn>added versionOfSubmittedItem</stn>
|
| - Suggest changing State to ProcessStep (or something). In the end it
must
| act like an LCS and "State" may make best sense for "Checked-Out".

11179 uses "status".

| <stn>I too am thinking that state is not the best name for this.  I was
| really looking at state as related to the phases in RUP, and it could be
as
| refined as the content in a model, as related to the metamodel between
| developed in the Business Process PT.
|
| - Would Version be managed by the repository to indicate history as
things
| are checked-in and out?

Need to decide whether the version number is assigned by the registry
or by the submitting organization (if the latter, the registry could
check to see that it's been incremented).

| <stn>Yes</stn>
|
| - Would isTransformableToXML be managed and set by the repository
| implementation considering input format?
|
| <stn>Yes</stn>
|
| The biggest current problem in the TRP workgroup concerning header
| definitions is the lack of a design view that
| shows what responsible "layer" of implementation would "own" which
fields.
|
| <stn>I am not clear about what is being referred to here, especially
| regarding ownership.  Are you referring to what "fields" are applicable
| within a given business process (ref: implementation) or is this
something
| completely different?</stn>

I imagine that the issue is what metadata is to be provided by the SO
and which by the RA (and in some cases it could be provided first by
the SO and then changed by the RA).  For 11179, there are tables in
Part 6 showing who's responsible for what.

regards, Terry


Terry Allen
Document Engineering Group
Commerce One, Inc.
Mountain View, Calif.
tallen[at]sonic.net