Gallagher - Comment/Proposal #1, Re-Name ManagedObject

[Len Gallagher <LGallagher@nist.gov>]

Gallagher - Comment/Proposal #1,  Re-Name ManagedObject

DISCUSSION

It's my understanding that other ebXML groups expect to be able to transmit
their Core Components, TPA's, and Organization Profiles, etc. to the
Registry/Repository for safekeeping.  And then be able to retrieve one of those
objects from the Registry/Repository with a single object reference.

Suppose some other group defines an XML DTD for OrgProfile. They then look at
the Registry Information Model to see if the Registry has a way to store the
metadata they are interested in keeping about their object, as well as the
object itself. They see the term ManagedObject and conclude that must be the
XML DTD for OrgProfile since that is the object they want to have stored and
described by the Registry/Repository.

But No! ManagedObject is NOT a term used to reference the OrgProfile they want
to store and describe. Instead, the ManagedObject instance is the metadata
about the OrgProfile, and the term "managed object content" is the terminology
they must use to reference the OrgProfile DTD. 

Those of us bothered by this terminology confusion raised it as an issue the
very first day this specification was proposed (in early September) - there was
agreement then that the terminology is confusing and should be changed. But the
issue was never adequately addressed. Proposals to change the terminology were
deferred in the interest of focusing attention on the POC effort.

We need a generic term to reference the objects that other groups want to have
registered and we need a separate generic term to reference the metadata about
that object. ManagedObject and "managed object content" are not the right terms
to use.  Especially ManagedObject should NOT BE USED to identify the metadata
about the object -- too many people think of the ManagedObject as the object
they want to have registered and described!

To me "managed object content" is a reference to the attributes of the
ManagedObject class. It is very misleading to have it reference a completely
separate object. We need a separate term without any "content" implications.

Why can't we take the lead of another group, i.e. OASIS Regrep, that has
already made a clear distinction between RegisteredObject and RegistryEntry. A
RegisteredObject is the object that is registered in a registry, and the
metadata describing that registered object is a RegistryEntry. There is a close
relationship, but not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between a
RegisteredObject and a RegistryEntry.

PROPOSAL: 

In the ebXML document, make global substitutions as follows:

 * Replace ManagedObject by RegistryEntry

 * Replace "managed object content" by RegisterdObject

 * Replace any remaining instances of "managed object" by either
   "registerd object" or "registry entry", whichever is intended.

 * Let registered object be any instance of the RegisteredObject class.

 * Let registry entry be any instance of the RegistryEntry class.

 * Let "registered object content" be the BLOB that is the registered
   object, as something separate from the "guid" for the BLOB.


**************************************************************
Len Gallagher                             LGallagher@nist.gov
NIST                                      Work: 301-975-3251
Bldg 820  Room 562                        Home: 301-424-1928
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 USA           Fax: 301-948-6213
**************************************************************