[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item
Steve, I think Monica's original reply to you is misleading here. The creation of the UUID value is not mandated to the registry system. If you are using a registry system - then internally within the registry it will create UUID references for its own uses. Obviously a modelling system or other tool can assign UUID values too as needed. However - there is a further clarification here - we're using GUIDs and IDrefs within the ebBP itself - and these of course are assigned by the ebBP tools. As you suggest you can easily use a URI as a UID value to within a ebBP to suit your own purposes. The Registry does also support the use of External IDs and UID values with the RIM - so while this is not called out and done as natively perhaps as one would wish - it does however nevertheless work equivalently. Hope that makes things a little clearer here. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com> To: "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "'ebXML BP'" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Duane Nickull'" <dnickull@adobe.com>; "'Farrukh Najmi'" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:57 PM Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item > Monica, > > Thanks for your response. One point I strongly disagree with: <recognizing > that the UUID would be assigned by the registry (not the business process > itself)>. If the registry does that then we face severe interoperability > problems between federated registries - as well as human "unfriendly" IDs. > Identifiers for registry objects should be URIs that are derived from the > model and so should be publisher assigned and should be the same, > irrespective of which registry node they are published to. I think I have > said before that, despite my liking of ebXML regrep in general, there is one > thing that the uddi group have done better and that is publisher assigned > keys and the key partition framework. > > Regards, > > Steve Capell > Red Wahoo Pty Ltd > +61 410 437854 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 8:21 AM > To: ebXML BP; Duane Nickull; Farrukh Najmi > Subject: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item > > Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.WI43-66-Name and Name ID Clarification; > Topic|; > Point|Use of UUID; > Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200406/msg00000.html; > > > > mm1@ > Steve, > Thanks for the input and contribution. As for the vote, all members of > the TC are eligible to vote here (observers or not), so please proceed. > > We did discuss the use of UUID and the xsd:id. The latter could be > perceived as an external identifier specific to the parties and their > interactions. That does not preclude the creation of a UUID for > registry purposes. The Reg/Rep team, and the CC/Reg Review subteam, have > been discussing that both may be important, recognizing that the UUID > would be assigned by the registry (not the business process itself). > > I've cc: Farrukh Najmi and Duane Nickull on this email so they are aware > of the discussion (as they have been involved in past communication). In > order for ebBP to support the <documentation> attribute you specified, > we would have to establish a variable that could acquire the UUID when > the process definition is stored > (which is may or may not be). > > I'll open the discussion to the team to consider your suggestion and the > other associated criteria. > > Thanks. > @mm1 > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]