Title: RE: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting
Okay,
but the classes you are referring to in the RIM are related only to the
submitting and/or responsible organization. They are not used as metadata for an
object in a repository.
-----Original Message-----
From: CHIUSANO, Joseph
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:59
PM
To: Fuger, Sally; CHIUSANO, Joseph; David RR Webber -
XMLGlobal
Cc: ebXML Regrep (E-mail); Nikola
Subject: 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.
