This is all filling out nicely!
Joe
"CRAWFORD, Mark" wrote:
>
> Actually, I would say that we leave the xml binding to un/cefact atg.
> Mark Crawford
> Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
> W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
> Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
> Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
> Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
> ______
> Logistics Management Institute
> 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
> (703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7481
> Wireless (703) 655-4810
>
> http://www.lmi.org
> "Opportunity is what you make of it"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph <>
> To: Farrukh Najmi <>
> CC: Nikola <>; <>
> Sent: Wed Jun 04 15:27:18 2003
> Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
>
> <Quote>
> I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your arguments make me
> agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our charter and
> more in the purvue of UBL TC.
> </Quote>
>
> So we should create a RIM binding, and leave any definition of an XML
> representation of Core Components to the UBL TC?
>
> Joe
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> >
> > Nikola wrote:
> >
> > ><Joe>
> > >I can clarify: We pondered that approach several months ago (updating
> > >RIM to accomodate CCTS requirements), but decided that it was best not
> > >to touch the RIM, but rather to either (a) create a RIM binding, or (b)
> > >express the CCTS metadata in XML format, as a "wrapper" to the XML
> > >representation of the Core Component (i.e. an XML serialization).
> > >
> > >We then decided on approach (b) for several reasons,
> > ></Joe>
> > >
> > >This is somewhat different then what I'd suggested in my earlier post. And,
> > >I cannot recall that we've decided on (b) -> maybe I missed that decision
> > >somehow.
> > >
> > I cannot recall a decision in favour of (b) either.
> >
> > >I am strongly opposed to (b) because it is not our job to define
> > >"XML wrapper" for CCTS artifacts. In that way we are doing something that is
> > >step [2] in my earlier post, which is IMO job of UBL and/or other similar
> > >efforts, not ours.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your arguments make me
> > agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our charter and
> > more in the purvue of UBL TC.
> >
> > --
> > Farrukh
> >
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php
