Title: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting
Sally,
You've got it all
correctly - we're just stretching the norm a bit here. We're discussing
using data (an instance of a UBL transaction, for example) to create metadata in
the registry (an instance of object class Organization, for example). More
specifically, we're focusing on those cases where a transaction from a
vocabulary (such as UBL) might have an equivalent object class in our RIM.
So for example,
an instance of a transaction from a vocabulary that contained Organization
information could be used to create an instance of object class
Organization in the registry.
Hope that
helps,
Joe
**************************************************************************
Joseph M. Chiusano
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
Email:
Tel: 571.633.7722
**************************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Fuger, Sally
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:48
PM
To: CHIUSANO, Joseph; David RR Webber - XMLGlobal
Cc:
ebXML Regrep (E-mail); Nikola
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of
today's meeting
Maybe I'm just confused and not following this discussion accurately,
but once again, I fear we are confusing registry content with the data
registered. Core Components and UBL vocabulary items, if someone chooses to
register them, fall into the latter category. Only their metadata goes in
the registry. Tell me if I've got it all backwards.
Sally
-----Original Message-----
From: CHIUSANO, Joseph
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:45
PM
To: 'David RR Webber - XMLGlobal'; CHIUSANO,
Joseph
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); 'Nikola'
Subject: RE:
[regrep] Minutes of today's meeting
David,
Thanks for your thoughts - I always appreciate and value
your insight.
I wonder if the requirements of the 2 representations of
"Organization" are vastly different, due to their purposes. For a
vocabulary such as UBL, there may be a need to identify an Organization to a
finer level of detail then a registry. A registry may require only
very high-level information (as our RIM does, with Address, Parent, Primary
Contact, and Phone #'s), while in a transactional environment it may be
required to exchange more detailed Organizational information between
parties (such as the countries in whicih the organization does business,
etc.).
Because of its purpose, the CIQ information is (as you know)
very fine-grained. I would not imagine that in a registry, one would
want/need to include such fine-grained name and address information (it
might be overkill).
Regards,
Joe
>
**************************************************************************
> Joseph M. Chiusano
> Logistics Management Institute
> 2000 Corporate Ridge
> McLean, VA 22102
> Email:
> Tel: 571.633.7722
>
**************************************************************************
>
-----Original Message-----
From:
David RR Webber - XMLGlobal [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:31 PM
To: CHIUSANO, Joseph
Cc: ebXML Regrep
(E-mail); 'Nikola'
Subject: RE: [regrep] Minutes of
today's meeting
Message text written by "CHIUSANO, Joseph"
>
Ah, I see...so, for instance, if the UBL
representation of Organization and
the registry
class for organization matched, the registry could potentially
accept a UBL transaction containing Organization
information as a means to
create an instance of an
Organization class within the registry, thereby
alleviating the need for a user to enter this information. The
same could
apply for class PostalAddress, class
PersonName, etc.
<<<<<<<<<<
Joe,
Forgive me for saying this - it appears to be the tail
wagging the dog.
UBL should be following the Registry organization
definitions, and
if they have issues with those -
should be making a proposal to
Registry on
it.
Also - OASIS CIQ TC is creating core component definitions
of
address, person and organization - so really that
again would
be where one would expect this detail to
harmonize - since that
is the exact scope for the
CIQ work in the first place!
Since the OASIS CIQ has participation from USPS, USGov
and
other groups reviewing such standards I suggest
they definately
represent a strong authority on such
definitions.
I'm not sure what policy UBL has - but one would expect them
to defer such technical matters to existing domain
groups -
and especially when the domain group
happens to be an
OASIS TC!
Cheers, DW.
