[ebxml-bp] RSD NameID/IDRef and UID

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Discussion|oasis.ebBP;
Topic|Name and NameID;
Point|Use of GUID and GUIDREF, or ID and IDREF;
mm1@

RE: WI 43 supplement - Martin, I believe we have not finalized what the 
mechanism behind the Name and NameID are. Can you and Kenji Nagahashi 
bring a short proposal to the group.

Thanks.

Reference:  martin.me.roberts@bt.com wrote 1/26/2004:

>Dear all,
>	I have some comments on these two issues.  I realise that
>decisions have been made on the nameID but I felt it might be worth
>reiterating my views.
>
>	NameID and IDRef and UID.  - I have found through experience
>that with tools ID and IDRef are the best way to go.  However, I have
>found that until tools are available and for some background editing the
>NamID seem to be the best answer for humans.  So the decision we have to
>make is where the effort will be placed in creating BPSS files.  If we
>think the majority will be through tools (we use Bind Studio) then IDs
>are where we should go.  If we feel human intervention will be still the
>main tool then we need to go down the nameID route.
>
>	This still leaves the UID question.  I like the idea that UID
>similar to the ones David Webber published as I as a human can sytill
>manage a 6digit number.  I have no hope of managing a GUID of 128K!!.
>We in BT have used the UID for all our document meta data and it has
>proved very easy to manage both for machines and humans.
>
>.......Martin Roberts 
>xml designer, 
>BT Exact
>e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
>tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
>fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
>Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
>
>.......................
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Nagahashi 1/7/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF
>From: nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:50:05 -0800
>To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>Hi,
>
>Sorry to be late. I was reading discussions on work item 43.
>Here's my proposal for resolution of the work item.
>
>There are two points to address:
>- double reference with name and nameID
>- uniqueness rule for nameID (or name), i.e. scope of nameID.
>
>Terms:
>- BPSS components: such as BinaryCollaboration, TransactionActivity.
>- GUID: general term for globally unique identifier. UUID is a specific
>example of GUID. Identifiers only unique within a document or package 
>are not GUIDs.
>- UUID: 128bit globally unique identifier defined by DCE. Used in ebRR.
>  
>
>>Proposal:
>>
>>- Use only nameID for referencing BPSS components.
>>- BPSS specification doesn't enforce any specific format for nameID.
>>Author may use arbitrary text (as far as it satisfies other rules).
>>- name attribute carries descriptive text only. It is never used for
>>referencing BPSS components. It is not required to be unique at all, 
>>even within a package.
>>
>>- Scope of nameID is a package. So reference to BPSS components (within
>>the same document) MUST be qualified with package names. As a special 
>>case, qualification is not necessary for reference to BPSS components in the same package. This means nameID is not a GUID (as defined above)
>>    
>>
>--- so type name for nameID should not contain "GUID" to avoid confusion.
>
>- external descriptions (eg CPP/A) reference BPSS components by
>combination of 
> 1. globally unique identifier for BPSS document (eg. URL, or UUID 
>assigned by ebRR)
> 2. fragment = <package name> '.' <nameID>
>
> (example: http://host.domain.com/brabra/process.xml#package.PO)
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Regards,
>Kenji Nagahashi
>
@mm1