Re: Data Dictionary Concept

[Christopher Browne]

> At 09:00 AM 8/18/2002, J. Childers wrote:
>  >> Has any kind of data dictionary or data structures definition been 
> started yet?
> 
> In my opinion. any data dictionary should be based on ebXML
> registry/repository and core components specifications

No, this puts the cart before the horse.  

It worries about interoperability that doesn't exist and may not even need to, 
instead of worrying about having a way of managing the data schemas that are 
_actually in the system_.

A usual data dictionary is all about having a database somewhere around that 
manages what tables (and contents) are used in the system.

There _will_ be data on the system that under NO circumstances should be 
released externally, such as security configuration and personal information 
(as is found in payroll).  That should NOT get attached to any "ebXML" system, 
lest mistakes lead to confidential information getting released, which could 
lead to all sorts of horrid effects including companies getting sued.

And again, worrying about that is vastly premature.  The point _isn't_ about 
abstract XML schema; it's about the concrete question of what DBMS tables are 
on THIS system, and how do they link to the INTERNAL functionality of GnuE, to 
forms, business rules, and such.  Forms are certainly not something that is 
any business of outsiders.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/advocacy.html
"If you reinvent  the square wheel, you will  not benefit when someone
else rounds off the corners."  -- Henry Spencer