Re: [regrep] Minutes of today's meeting

A lot of interesting and out of the box thinking on this thread!

May I suggest that the prudent thing architecturally is for us to not
have any direct coupling between RIM classes and UBL/CC definitions. As
Joe mentioned it brings up the issue of having to adapt to version changes
of the UBL/CC definition. It would also require breaking backward compatibility
(something we have managed to avoid in V3 proposals thus far).

We can have the benefit of Nikola's original suggestion by simply doing
due diligence at each release to make sure that we sync with any changes
in the UBL/CC definitions and make equivalent RIM classes stay compatible.
Anything beyond that would be questionable from an architectural standpoint.

--

Regards,

Farrukh

 

"CHIUSANO, Joseph" wrote:

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.I
like this idea, but I would offer a caveat (as I mentioned in our call
yesterday) that if the UBL representation of Organization were to change
(for example, an element is no longer mandatory), the RIM class would need
to be updated (which as we know would not be an easy change).As
we know, this type of thing is much better enforced with schemas. :)Thanks,Joe**************************************************************************

  Joseph M. Chiusano

  Logistics Management Institute

  2000 Corporate Ridge

  McLean, VA 22102

  Email: 

  Tel: 571.633.7722

**************************************************************************

-----Original
Message-----

From: Nikola [mailto:]

Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002
9:37 AM

To: ebXML Regrep (E-mail)

Subject: Re: [regrep] Minutes
of today's meeting

 

<JoesAddition>

The specific issue has to do with whether or not the
registry should enforce compatibility with various standards (UBL, etc.). 
Nikola described a scenario in which the registry would verify that a certain
component (e.g. Address) "conforms" to a certain standard - e.g. the UBL
version of Address.</JoesAddition> What
I was trying to communicate was that Core Components Review subcommittee
should investigate whether our RIM classes, like Organization ... could
be compatible with CC, UBL ... and if yes, what would be necessary to do.
This would be a low priority item at this time. In case that we can reuse
some of these components, registry would be able to reuse available component
validation and other routines / services for that component to process
its own components. Nikola