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

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Len, I agree on terminology changes. My primary reason is that
we (IBM) use the term "ManagedObject" in our ComponentBroker/WAS-Enterprise
product to reflect objects under control (lifecycle, etc) of an Instance
Manager or EJB Container. I would like to not cause confusion with our
product. I support
your ideas for changes but with the following further considerations:

>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

If deviation from the OASIS Regrep terminology is acceptable, I suggest,
again, dropping "object" completely,
and use the term "Item". Thus, consider "RegisteredItem" in place of
RegisteredObject, and "RegisterdMetadataItem"
for an obvious replacement for RegistryEntry. This seems straight forward
to me and does not invite
OO implementation assumptions. Your suggestion does make one ask what is
the difference
between an "object" and an "entry", and I think there is value in keeping
the terminology consistent.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Len Gallagher <LGallagher@nist.gov> on 11/29/2000 07:07:28 AM

To:   ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  Gallagher - Comment/Proposal #1, Re-Name ManagedObject




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
**************************************************************