RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

[Diego Ballv� <diego.ballve@republica.fi>]

Supporting (a), here is a sample jpg of our "Person Details" CC/BIE.
It was captured from a ebxmlrr's RegistryBrowser window. The graph
is incomplete since more related objects would popup from almost
every node, but I'm sure you can get the picture.

Then, if you need to convert
  <ExtrinsicObject ...>
    ...
  </ExtrinsicObject>
to/from
  <AggregateBusinessInformationEntity ...>
    ...
  </AggregateBusinessInformationEntity>
then use XSLT!! ;)
(I know it might not be that simple, but that's the basic idea)

Regards,
Diego

ps.: David, I'll digest your CCR_CRI doc tomorrow morning,
but I can advance that we tried not to mix presentation w/
model when adding BIEs to registry. To generate a XML Schema,
we've implemented a tool that uses JAXR to get BIEs from
registry (using diferent search options) and generate an
xml assembly document where customizations (XML element name,
for instance) can be made. XSLT + JAXR on this document and
we have the final business document. But I'll study your
doc tomorrow.

> -----Original Message-----
> So we should create a RIM binding, and leave any definition of an XML
> representation of Core Components to the UBL TC?  
> 
> Joe
> 
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> > 
> > Nikola wrote:
> > 
> > ><Joe>
> > >I can clarify: We pondered that approach several months 
> ago (updating
> > >RIM to accomodate CCTS requirements), but decided that it 
> was best not
> > >to touch the RIM, but rather to either (a) create a RIM 
> binding, or (b)
> > >express the CCTS metadata in XML format, as a "wrapper" to the XML
> > >representation of the Core Component (i.e. an XML serialization).
> > >
> > >We then decided on approach (b) for several reasons,
> > ></Joe>
> > >
> > >This is somewhat different then what I'd suggested in my 
> earlier post. And,
> > >I cannot recall that we've decided on (b) -> maybe I 
> missed that decision
> > >somehow.
> > >
> > I cannot recall a decision in favour of (b) either.
> > 
> > >I am strongly opposed to (b) because it is not our job to define
> > >"XML wrapper" for CCTS artifacts. In that way we are doing 
> something that is
> > >step [2] in my earlier post, which is IMO job of UBL 
> and/or other similar
> > >efforts, not ours.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your 
> arguments make me
> > agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our 
> charter and
> > more in the purvue of UBL TC.
> > 
> > --
> > Farrukh
> > 
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php

PersonDetails.jpg