Thanks Duane - that's the exact kind of feedback I was looking for.
Sounds like this is covered in v3.0 by the Federated Registries Object
Replication feature - from ebRS v2.35, lin 5188 (p.151):
<Quote>
Any Submitting Organization can create a replica by using the standard
SubmitObjectsRequest.
...
Creating a local replica requires the destination registry to read the
state of the remote object from the source registry and then create a
local replica of the remote object.
</Quote>
Joe
Duane Nickull wrote:
>
> 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/
