atom feed77 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.regrepRe: [regrep] [TN Proposal] Mapping Bu...
FromSent OnAttachments
6 earlier messages
Farrukh NajmiSep 17, 2004 11:24 am 
Chiusano JosephSep 17, 2004 11:34 am 
Farrukh NajmiSep 17, 2004 11:53 am 
Carl MattocksSep 17, 2004 12:09 pm 
Chiusano JosephSep 17, 2004 12:13 pm 
Fuger, SallySep 17, 2004 12:17 pm 
Farrukh NajmiSep 17, 2004 12:50 pm 
Farrukh NajmiSep 17, 2004 1:03 pm 
Chiusano JosephSep 17, 2004 1:14 pm 
Carl MattocksSep 17, 2004 2:01 pm 
Chiusano JosephSep 17, 2004 2:05 pm 
Farrukh NajmiSep 17, 2004 2:11 pm 
Carl MattocksSep 17, 2004 3:05 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 8:48 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 8:49 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 8:54 am 
Farrukh NajmiSep 20, 2004 8:56 am 
Farrukh NajmiSep 20, 2004 8:59 am 
Breininger, Kathryn RSep 20, 2004 9:02 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 9:49 am 
Chiusano JosephSep 20, 2004 10:14 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:13 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:19 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:20 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 11:37 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 11:39 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 11:43 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:43 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:50 am 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 11:59 am 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 12:03 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 12:06 pm 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 12:17 pm 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 12:26 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 12:27 pm 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 12:34 pm 
Matthew MacKenzieSep 20, 2004 12:37 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 12:58 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 1:02 pm 
Farrukh NajmiSep 20, 2004 1:07 pm 
Matthew MacKenzieSep 20, 2004 1:12 pm 
Chiusano JosephSep 20, 2004 1:43 pm 
Matthew MacKenzieSep 20, 2004 1:46 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 1:47 pm 
Matthew MacKenzieSep 20, 2004 1:53 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 3:19 pm 
Chiusano JosephSep 20, 2004 5:20 pm 
Duane NickullSep 20, 2004 5:49 pm 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 6:31 pm 
David RR WebberSep 20, 2004 6:33 pm 
21 later messages
Subject:Re: [regrep] [TN Proposal] Mapping Business Information Models toebXML RegistryInformation Model (Was: [regrep] UN/CEFACT-ICG adopts freebXMLRegistry)
From:Duane Nickull (dnic@adobe.com)
Date:Sep 20, 2004 11:37:53 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.regrep

It is not my model. It is the approved CCTS and UMM models.

While jCam may do that, it requires certain details be available (the artifacts themselves) and that the designers can access certain information ourside of a registry environment. As per UN/CEFACT's goals of electronic and non electronic business functionality, use of a registry is not always a pre-required component.

CAM does solve many of the problems, but ONLY if the information is present in the schema fragments it consumes.

Duane

David RR Webber wrote:

Duane,

I do not buy your model here.

When you use jCAM and the noun definitions we are developing for SCM - you head all these problems off at the pass.

This was the lesson we learned from the CEFACT work - that you need to separate the assembly mechanism from the noun representations. We did that and moved on.

The context is then managed and exposed by the CAM templates themselves - and since they are simply XML instances you can query across them by UID ( *not* UUID) and garner the associations and usage easily.

And the noun definitions as defined are covering off the gaps that the RIM and UMM models of CC are not accounting for. Again - no giant surprise here - thats exactly what we deisnged them for an have foreseen - the difference between the model layer and the implementation layer.

Next up we will be working with the CEFACT folks on implementing this in registry - so they should be able - as noted in the CEFACT meeting - be able to take the existing ISO dictionary work - use the noun definition format - and store those semantics into registry.

The jCAM engine can then read and apply those from the registry during either validation of assembly of content or both.

Thanks, DW ==========================================================================

Farrukh Najmi wrote:

A few special cases in CCTS mapping do not obviate the need for a generic mapping TN that covers most domain specific mapping and 90%+ of CCTS. What is the downside of doing a generic mapping document as you see it?

The downside is that there are dependencies on the storage for what must be serialized on the wire. If that information is not stored as per the generic mapping, then the whole mechanism may not work. Each artifact has different requirements for what must be serialized on the wire. BIE's need to know what CC they came from, they also need to know the contexts (UUID for a set of contexts) that lead to their existence, CC's do not need to know the BIE's spawned from them, yet do need to know there are BIE's and provide a mechanism (Classification tree?) for others to locate the BIE for a specific set of contexts.

The set of contexts is also another huge problem. There may be 8-10 million. One BIE may be used for a range of contexts (example - all french speaking countries and regions). Just creating that many classifications will crash most registry implementations I know of or make them unmanageably slow.

These are just a few of the potential problems.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.