[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [ebBP] 3/29/2004: WI-43 Name and NameID Formatting [RSD] NagahashiSubmission
Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.WI43-Name and NameID; Topic|; Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00104.html; Point|Point paper by Nagahashi posted 28 March 2004; mm1@ Everyone, We should discuss the options specified by Kenji in this paper. Martin note he has tried to capture your option here too. He also makes points to versioning of BPSS elements. From a quick read, it appears we have to decide where the business requirements lie, with package- or document-based support. We do know that we have user community requirements to support packages (such as what has been seen in RosettaNet and we are starting to see in automotive [1]). That may lend itself to selecting one option over the other. Please post comments to the list or bring your comments to the call today. Note, with daylight savings time changes in Europe, times have been modified (doesn't affect PST, MST and EST). Thanks. [1] In automotive, OAG has started to move to what they are calling flat BODs that help differentiate the developer (full set of schemas required) vs. the end-user package (flattened schema). This correlation may not be exact but it does indicate the need for package support in BPSS because the logical business document cannot be separated from the process it supports (and vice versa). ========================================================================================================================= ||Point|Last item before summary proposal and vote; ||Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00250.html; ||Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00224.html; ||Remember in this, as requested by Dale Moberg, to indicate whether Name or Name ID is being referenced in order This assists code processing. ||John Yunker, we need your feedback on this one that we have met your use case. ||Kenji Nagahashi, Martin had proposed previously three types could be used. We discussed two in our meeting in the last few weeks (see previous email below). Which ||option do you and Martin believe will be the most accessible and flexible for the user? ||Roberts, February 2004: ||1. Unique Id: Id must be universally unique, need not be human friendly and used only to identify the object in a unique unambiguous manner. The Id must not be ||overloaded to contain any encoded information. ||2. Human Friendly Name: In the registry this can be any String and need not be unique at all. ||3. External Identifier: A unique value within a unique namespace that serves as an identifier for the object. ||An example is the DUNS # for a company within the DUNS namespace. ||Previous email summary vote information: ||mm1@ ||The fifth Work Item for summary closure is: ||Work Item 43 Name and NameID [Use of GUID and GUIDREF (Use of name and/or id for reference elements)] || ||Work Item Summary ||In the BPSS Schema 1.01 and 1.1 elements can be reference either by their name or their ID (or GUID). ||Seems one is redundant and ID's (GUIDs) normally used to reference other elements. Do GUID's help XML parsers? ||Use of GUID and GUIDREF could lead to processing errors. Identify or recommend if acceptable for CPPA or allow ||them to also decide on this (for CPA negotiation). Given resolve, specify explicitly if the scope of global ||uniqueness for GUIDREF. || ||Relates to WIs: ||None identified. || ||Summary Resolve ||a. Provide the capability for internal and external uniqueness of a BPSS instance. || ||Note: In meeting 8 March 2004, we discussed that both a NameID (allow late binding) and UUID (guaranteed to work and be pre-resolved) could be used but would add ||additional complexity. Therefore, we need to ensure we provide the capability to handle the use cases and minimize level of complexity. We need to be able to use the ||same Name with two IDs. One solution was to use an UUID and append to an IDREF. UUID is unique because it includes an IP address as part of its root. Globally ||unique in the context of the creator, per Yunker. Nagahashi commented that an IDREF could be combined with identifiable BPSS instance. Does this meet the ||requirements for internally (local) and externally unique reference? || ||Open Items ||v3.0: Revisit for the ProcessSpecification. || ||***Kenji Nagahashi/John Yunker: We are pending your comments on Roberts' proposal as discussed 8 March 2004 and verification this fits your us cases.*** || ||The ballot on this item will not be opened until I get an answer from Kenji/Martin/John Y. Thanks so please provide comment. ||@mm1 @mm1
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]