Thanks Farrukh. Would you be willing to elaborate on one point:
<Quote>
Experience with many pilots suggests that the best approach is to have
an XML format for CCTS content with ebRIM format for CCTS metdata. So I
would reccomend both XML serialization format (outside of binding) and
binding to ebRIM metadata.
</Quote>
It would be very helpful.
Joe
Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> >OUR DIRECTION APPEARS TO BE:
> >
> >(1) A RIM binding should be created;
> >
> +1
>
> >
> >(2) This binding should be created within the Core Components Review
> >subcommittee of the Registry TC;
> >
> This decision is not my recollection. My suggetsion was to have the
> binding be defined and owned by the CCTS team. I will defer to you and
> others on this though. My main desire is to keep the binding out of
> ebRIM and ebRS specs and keep the ebXML Registry content agnostic
> architecturally.
>
> >(3) A Core Components serialization will not be defined (all metadata
> >attributes will be specified in a RIM binding)
> >
> Experience with many pilots suggests that the best approach is to have
> an XML format for CCTS content with ebRIM format for CCTS metdata. So I
> would reccomend both XML serialization format (outside of binding) and
> binding to ebRIM metadata. Again I will defer to you and others on this
> point as it does not impact the core registry specs. The real impact of
> this decision is on CCTS and if I were CCTS team I would define a
> normative XML Schema for CC.
