Re: Registry Information Model v0.41

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Farrukh:

I reviewedthe document you sent out.  The work is looking good.  There
are a few comments I would like to submit for your persual.

 RIM v 0.41

Line 328-331:  remove java classes.  ebXML must remain technology (ie:
programing language) independant.

Line 342:  reads URI to object in "Registry" - change to Repository. 
Items do not actually reside in the Registry.

Line 243:  I beleive the Oasis element is "commonElementName" - I may be
wrong.

Line 347:  We should use the xml:lang attribute to xpose descriptions in
various languages

Line 360:  Who defines the "roleName"?

Line 365:  Is the Contains::Aggregation/composition referring to an
Object comprised of several smaller objects?  If it is,  is this not
what the "package" object can appropriately define?  

Line 365:  Uses/Used by may get a bit large in implementation. 
Recommend it be depracated except for referring to its' use within ebXML
defined processes/aggragates.

Line 367: Section 11 -> recommend you read the thread on XML taxonomies
started by Karl Best.  IN particular the response I sent describing
multiple classficiation schemes may be of use.

Line 429:  This is an ugly place.  The expression of contextually
sensetive classifications is very obfuscated.  

I personally beleive that the logic for accomplishing this is best left
to ebXML applications, not as an expression of information in a
Registry/Repository. 

Line 488:  Must be a contextual query.  You must be able to find
"foo:111" inside the element "specificElement".  Otehrwise the system
will not work in an automated environment.  This is tracable back to the
TA document.  A plain text search is not acceptable via the Registry
service interface.

Line 491:  Good Thinking!!!

Finally,  I would like to be named as a contributor to the document if
you decide to use any of the comments herein.

Excellent work.  

Duane Nickull 

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> 
> Attached is the latest Information Model Spec for your review. This is
> essentially the same content that was reviewed at Tokyo f2f.
> 
> Changes are as follows:
> 
> -Changes based on Tokyo face-to-face meeting.
> -Context sensitive classifications
> -Reformatted to conform to ebXML document standard.
> 
> It is proposed that this version be submitted to Quality Review modulo
> changes based on feedback.
> 
> I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                  Name: RegistryInfoModelv0-41.pdf
>    RegistryInfoModelv0-41.pdf    Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
>                              Encoding: BASE64