Joseph:
Matt MacKenzie, David Webber and I implemented this stuff 2 years ago
and out that each has merits. The problem you have identified is that
once a CC or BIE is copied, serialized and transmitted to a remote
location, it looses its' RIM metadata (context). That includes
classifications, associations etc. Therefore, if CC's and BIE's are to
be stored in a registry, users need to either copy the appropirate RIM
data with it, or duplicate the RIM data in the Registry Objects itself
(an un-elegant solution IMHO).
IN the Wrox book 'Professonal ebXML Foundations" a chapter was written
identifying this problem and a solution. I still believe the solution
lies somewhere ins a hybrid approach. This could involve wrapping the
actual Registry Object with a RIM Metadata envelope before it is
serlialized and transmitted.
Duane Nickull
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> All,
>
> I've been thinking more about this issue...that is, given a set of
> metadata attributes (such as those specified in the Core Components
> spec), which should be part of the RIM (through a binding) and which
> should be "pushed down" into the contents - i.e. as a "wrapper" for the
> core component or associated entity.
>
> For example, lets say we need to provide for the following metadata for
> a Core Component (this is all hypothetical):
>
> - Object Type (Basic Core Component (BCC), Basic Business Information
> Entity (BBIE), etc.)
> - Creation Date
>
> And let's say the Core Component contained "Contact Information" for an
> individual. In general, there are 2 approaches to representing this
> metadata (let's say for simplicity that you cannot split the metadata up
> - that is, you must include all metadata in one approach):
>
> (1) As part of serialization
> (2) As part of RIM
>
> Approach #1 would look as follows (note "CoreComponentMetadata" header,
> with data in "CoreComponentData" element):
>
> <CoreComponent>
> <CoreComponentMetadata>
> <ObjectType>BCC</ObjectType>
> <CreationDate>2003-01-03</CreationDate>
> </CoreComponentMetadata>
> <CoreComponentData>
> <ContactInformation>
> <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName>
> ...more elements here...
> </ContactInformation>
> </CoreComponentData>
> </CoreComponent>
>
> Approach #2 would look as follows:
>
> - ObjectType and CreationDate are RIM attributes
> - Serialization looks as follows (note no "CoreComponentMetadata"
> element):
>
> <CoreComponent>
> <CoreComponentData>
> <ContactInformation>
> <PersonFirstName>Harry</PersonFirstName>
> ...more elements here...
> </ContactInformation>
> </CoreComponentData>
> </CoreComponent>
>
> My question is: What are the distinct advantages and disadvantages to
> each of these approaches? And which previals (if any) as the most
> advantageous/preferred approach to representing Core Components and
> their associated entities?
>
> Looking forward to some great insight...Thanks!
>
> Joe
--
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
