[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Name and GUID
David,
First,
I do not think that the GUIDs used in BP are the same as those of the registry,
nor should they be.
Second, I am uncertain whether any real permanent referential label is
implied in being a GUID within a BPSS instance. I did not find any definitive
statement in recent drafts (though I might have missed one). Maybe Monica, JJ or
Martin could help on this question.
That is, it is my understanding that the
GUID/GUIDREF constructs are being used to solve two technical problems
The first is setting up a relation (association) between or among
elements, such as a relation between a BusinessTransaction and a Document.
The second is that the solution to the first problem must survive even when new
packages are imported. Global uniqueness is then being used to avoid
collision of referential devices as they are used to declare
relationships.
There
is no real provision for any registry of these GUIDs to
be systematically used as the "canonical name" for the information items
pointed to.
So I
could take a given BPSS instance with its GUIDs and replace all the GUIDs (and
update the GUIDREFs accordingly) and I would not have necessarily created a
substantially new BPSS with new semantic significance. That is why I
was indicating that I considered them only syntactical
constructs.
Now if
we do have a requirement for canonical names for information items in BPSS
instances, I think that is a new requirement (to me anyway) and we should
consider whether we want to take it on. I also think we want to know why we need
a canonical naming system, what the uses for these names is to be, and what
conformance burdens are placed on implementations for their correct usage. If we
do go this direction, and I am not endorsing it here, I wonder whether we would
then need a registry for these semantic constants and some organizational
body maintaining the canonical name list.
If you
are familiar with IANA or the ISO/ITU OID systems, I think you may get a glimpse
of the burdens we might be assuming. I personally would be reluctant to take on
the burden of a canonical systematic naming project within our
TC.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]