Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Joe,

Having sat in thru CCTS meetings - the first thing that strikes you is
that they have put a great deal of thought into creating a minimum
function set - that thru recursion - satisfies their requirements. 

However - they have internalized this themselves - and its not
entirely obvious how the chinese rings fits neatly together.

I think if we focus narrowly on their spec', and do not take a
broader view initially - then we will constrain ourselves
artifically.

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.  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.

As a requirement I believe we are supporting CCTS, but not
at the exclusion of everything else.  We should have a broader
goal - and then showing how CCTS semantics can also be 
captured and implemented too.

As a strawman - something like : 

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.

2) Supporting rendering implementation layer semantics
     with physical typing support and validation semantics for the 
     business logical needs.

3) Providing classification and ontology support and 
     conceptual typing for the design and modelling needs.

4) Providing interfacing to content assembly mechanisms
     using XML, and support for migrating legacy 
     non-XML formats.

5) Providing search and discover support for tools that 
     support enduser access to a vocabulary, or across
     vocabularies.

6) Enabling industries to share common vocabularies and
     develop better alignment of semantics for shared 
     meanings across industries.

Thanks, DW.
========================================================
Message text written by "Chiusano Joseph"
>> 
> I tried reading the CCTS spec and am having much trouble digesting it. I
> think it would be a good idea, if as a first step, you could schedule a
> sub-team meeting and go over the CCTS info model and core concepts. What
> do other team members think?
<