Subject: Re: Thoughts on Classification support in RS
Lisa, I completely agree. I have been working closely with BP and TP in particular to achieve alignement. I will update the identified attributes in v0.5 to be better aligned with BP, CC, TP meta -models (moving targets) with a focus on Tokyo POC and with the note you suggested. -- Regards, Farrukh Lisa Carnahan wrote: > > Hello All, > > Is there a conference call this morning? Did I miss the call info? > > During the last conference call I volunteered to provide attribute > concepts and information related to the Registry Service > Specification. > > In thinking about this...the Reg/rep group has not yet started to > define the attributes common to all registered items, nor has it begun > coordinating with BP and CC to create additional attributes necessary > for BPs and CCs. This is not a trivial exercise that can be completed > fully using the schedule for the Tokyo POC. Nor does it need to be. > Except for the classification attributes, which need to be thought > through some more as indicated by Farrukh below, the attributes > defined in the current Registry Service Specification should suffice > for the POC. Perhaps additional attributes for registered items that > are organizational profiles may fall out of the POC process. > > I'd like to propose that a note be placed in the current Registry > Service Spec. pointing out that the current list of attributes is not > a complete list of attributes, but will suffice for the Tokyo POC. > > I hope we can discuss this more during the next conference call. > > --lisa > > At 08:55 AM 9/14/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >> I have spent the last few days think through the classification >> support >> issue that was identified as a major hole in RS v0.4 by >> the team. I have been educating myslef by talking to numerous people >> and >> have gotten excellent feedback and ideas from Bob Haugen from BP, >> Chris >> Ferris from TP, Yutaka Yoshida from RR and others. I have spent the >> yesterday and most of last night studying >> David's proposal for classification support. This note is a brain >> dump >> of my current thinking based on what I have learned. >> >> The good news is that the team has rallied to Scott's call for >> action in >> the last meeting. I am very appreciative of the hard work David put >> in >> on the issue. >> >> The bad news is that IMHO, we are quite far from meeting the >> requirements as I understand them based on the current proposal >> (CP). >> So let me start with requirements and then identify where we have >> holes. >> I will then follow up with some very specific recommendations on how >> to >> meet the requirements. >> >> Requirements >> ========= >> >> General Requirements >> ---------------------- >> o Need tight alignment with BP, CC, TP meta-model work >> o Need all access to objects and to RS to be over ebXML TRP >> >> Object MetaData Requirements >> -------------------------------- >> o Need to associate meta-data attributes with objects. Such >> attributes >> may be specialized based on the type of object >> >> >> Classification Requirements >> --------------------------- >> o Need to classify objects on multiple dimensions >> o Need to allow an extensible user defined classifications on an >> Object >> o Need to define any number of associations between objects >> o Classification scheme mechanism should be general enough that >> classification can be provided by project team in the same manner as >> >> user defined (or industry defined) classification schemes. >> o Need to support standard coded schemes >> >> >> Query Requirements >> --------------------- >> o Need to support conjugation (AND, OR, NOT) of simple predicates >> into >> complex predicates. E.g. Find all Parties that sell computers AND >> are >> located in the Boston area >> o Need to support inheritance in classification schemes. E.g. Find >> all >> parties that sell automobiles should find all parties that sell cars >> or >> trucks if there is an inheritance relatioship between automobile, >> car >> and truck >> o Need to support range of values in a concept. E.g. Response time >> is >> BETWEEN 0 AND 6 hours >> o Need to support membership in a set. E.g. Find all parties that >> sell >> o Need to support sorting. E.g. Find all parties that sell Digital >> Cameras and list them sorted by their customer satisfaction rating >> o Need to support comparison operators. E.g. Find all suppliers of >> CoolPix990 where the price is < 830. >> o Need to support aggregate expersion (MIN, MAX, Average, SUM) etc. >> for >> cheapest price, longest warranty etc., better than average >> performance >> >> Issues With Current Proposal >> ==================== >> >> I first started listing which requirements where *not* being met by >> CP. >> When it seemed like they were unfortunately a large >> list I decide to invert things and list which requirements from >> above >> *ARE* being met: >> >> The following requirements do seem to be met in CP. >> >> -Need to associate meta-data attributes with objects. >> -Need to support standard coded schemes >> >> The following general issues were observed: >> >> -Specific technology is being recommended (e.g. WebDav/DASL). This >> is >> not consistent with ebXML vision and purpose >> >> Please forgive me if I have misinterpretted anything or missed any >> other >> requirement that is being met. Reading through >> a 26 page document can have its limitations. All in all I feel that >> this >> proposal is too far off the mark. Please understand that I have been >> >> very objective and fair. I do not just want to find nits in hard >> work >> put in by my esteemed team-mates. I would like to humbly recommend >> some >> alternatives we should consider that will make us meet the >> requirements. >> >> Recommended Approach >> ================= >> >> Registry Information Model >> ---------------------------- >> >> The registry information model defines: >> >> o How managed objects are organized in the Registry >> o Is based on ebXML meta-models from various working groups >> o Provides a basis for relational or object schemas for an RS >> implementation >> >> Managed Objects >> ------------------ >> o Define some built-in types of ManagedObjects based on WG >> meta-models >> (e.g. TPA, TPAElement, Schema, SchemaElement, BusinessProcess etc.) >> >> o It should be possible to have any number user defined managed >> objects >> that are of the generic ManagedObject type. >> o A built-in object type may provide methods for supported >> associations >> (e.g. A TPA may provide a method to get its Parties), that can be >> used >> in queries. >> o Each identified managed object typedefines its own unique meta-dat >> >> attributes as well inherits such attributes from its super class in >> the >> meta-model. >> o RS supports queries on these attributes defined for managed >> objects. >> >> Associations Between Managed Object >> ----------------------------------------- >> A managed object may be associated with 0 or more managed objects. >> >> An association has the following attributes: >> o An association has name >> o An association has a type >> o An association may be directed or may be bi-directional. >> >> Classification By Concepts >> --------------------------- >> A concept is the basis for a classification scheme: >> >> A Concept is: >> o Are ManagedObjects >> o Have an id (code) >> o Have a name >> o Support inheritance >> o Support containment >> o Support associations >> o Support collections >> >> Classification Scheme Support >> ------------------------------- >> o Objects are classified by their having an Association with a >> Concept >> o An Object can be classified in multiple dimensions by having >> multiple >> associations with multiple concepts >> >> Query Support >> ========== >> >> Much more on this later. Running out of time but suffice to say it >> will >> address all the query requirements. >> Forgive the typing errors. My final recommendation is that I put the >> >> above ideas down in more detail and clarity >> for your review by next week. >> >> Lets talk about this in the meeting. >> >> -- >> Regards >> Farrukh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Lisa CarnahanNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyInformation > Technology Laboratory100 Bureau Drive Stop 8970Gaithersburg, Md. > 20899301-975-3362 voice301-948-6213 faxlisa.carnahan@nist.gov -- Regards, Farrukh
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;fax:781-442-1610 tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh S. Najmi end:vcard
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC