ebxml-regrep message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: Re: Thoughts on Classification support in RS


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



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


org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
fn:Farrukh S. Najmi

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC