Re: [ebxml-cppa] CPP identification revisited

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>]

Nikola,

I used the term "authority" in the URI sense[1]:

	<scheme>://<authority><path>?<query>

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that within "an" ebXML
registry, that the UUID's were a problem, it is only once
they are let out of the bag, so to speak, that they become
meaningless strings of ascii characters.

As for federation, it isn't clear to me that this is a normative
part of the specs at present. It would be well served to
have the information needed to resolve a foriegn UUID such as
the URI schemes I have suggested might be used in any event
(much more efficient than asking every nearby node if they
know anything about the artifact with the UUID xxxxxxxxxxxxx.!)

Cheers,

Chrisd

Nikola Stojanovic wrote:

> <Chris>
> The problem with a UUID is that it gives no clue as to what authority
> created it!
> </Chris>
> 
> I am not sure why you've introduced "authority" here. Let's say you know who
> I am (even know how "to reach me"). Do you need to know who the "authority"
> that created me was? If yes, why?
> 
> BTW, resolvability of UUID in "an" ebXML registry is not (I hope we agree) a
> problem. I would also like to emphasize that "Federated Registries" is (and
> was) one of the candidate working items for ebXML Registry TC so it might be
> useful not to try to map relevant use cases to the current specs. Of course,
> whoever can provide some of those (use cases) would help the team in
> addressing this important functionality.
> 
> Nikola Stojanovic
> Lead Technologist, Research and Development
> Encoda Systems, Inc.
> 101 Pineview Terrace
> Ithaca, NY 14850 USA
> nikola.stojanovic@encodasystems.com 
> Tel: 607-273-2224
> 
>