> I think if we focus narrowly on their spec', and do not take a
> broader view initially - then we will constrain ourselves
> artifically.
Seems to me that the narrow focus is the charter of this effort
>
> Particularly - we need to realize that we are infact building the
> implementation layer for their conceptual layer. So very little
> in their spec' speaks to implementation mechanics - since they
> are focused on behaviours.
right. And the larger picture is really a function of the as yet to be established ebXML Architecture Team - not the registry team.
>In particular legacy migration of existing vocabularies is an area that I see we have where
> thru providing better mechanisms at the implementation layer
> we can facilitate adoption of our CCR/S specification. Notice
> this is separate and distinct from promoting adoption of CCTS.
>
> 1) providing XML constructs for the implementation of
> ebusiness vocabularies as physical nouns, and aggregates
> while enabling the deriving of conceptual core components
> and their crosswalks to the physical entities.
Entirely out of scope. This is a function of the various business vocabularies themselves. One reason why you should focus on core components as profiled objects, and not part of a larger XML expression. Leave that to the individual implementers.
>
> 2) Supporting rendering implementation layer semantics
> with physical typing support and validation semantics for the
> business logical needs.
Out of scope.
>
> 3) Providing classification and ontology support and
> conceptual typing for the design and modelling needs.
A registry function, not CCTS directly related.
>
> 4) Providing interfacing to content assembly mechanisms
> using XML, and support for migrating legacy
> non-XML formats.
Why XML? Where in the ebXML requirements does it say that everything must be in XML? I may want to store as a UML profiled object. Will you render the ebXML registry as non-selectible by insisting on XML?
>
> 5) Providing search and discover support for tools that
> support enduser access to a vocabulary, or across
> vocabularies.
Agree.
>
> 6) Enabling industries to share common vocabularies and
> develop better alignment of semantics for shared
> meanings across industries.
The purpose of the CCTS and the harmonization effort that UN/CEFACT is putting in place.
Mark
