[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]