[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, Further clarification - actually UUIDs can occur in the BPSS from other things that might be referenced that are stored in the Registry. I would not wildly recommend this - since as you note - those UUIDs could change if content is moved or updated - but it may make sense for some applications. This really overflows into the OASIS Registry SCM work on Use Case #2 - creating business catalogue packages of components - eg CPA, BPSS, ebMS, Context, CAM templates - that then enable plug-and-play use of a business process. The catalogue package may need to reference specific instances of items in the registry. We've just started work on this in SCM - so its still work-in-progress how this gets done. Another aspect of the catalogue entry is just what semantics do you expect - so that its discoverable and classifiable and so on. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com> To: "'David RR Webber'" <david@drrw.info>; "'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 7:50 PM Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item > David, > > Thanks for that - certainly does clarify the issue for me. I agree that > registry IDs that are totally internal to the registry can be registry > generated - but in that case they have nothing to do with UUIDs in a BPSS > schema. > > It's good to see that ebXML-rr is also able to support an object key > framework that permits the same object (eg a collaboration/Role) to be > published to multiple registries with the same public ID. > > Regards, > > Steve Capell > Red Wahoo Pty Ltd > +61 410 437854 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 9:42 AM > To: Steve Capell; 'Monica J. Martin'; 'ebXML BP'; 'Duane Nickull'; 'Farrukh > Najmi' > 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]