Re: Call Tomorrow (Len's rethinking)

[Dan Chang <dtchang@us.ibm.com>]

Farrukh,

I will support that RIM be revised along the lines that you and Len have
proposed. But I hope the revised RIM is not fixed in concrete and is
available for review and further changes based on comments. The reason is
that the proposal as it stands provides an outline for the revision, not
all specifics of the revision.

On classification, I can understand that a ClassificationScheme (tModel in
UDDI terminology) must support UUID and may itself be classified by some
other, higher-level ClassificationScheme. However, I find it hard to
understand that a Classification (CategoryBag in UDDI terminology) must
support UUID or need to be classified.

I do feel strongly about this issue. I can't imagine that I will have to
provide a UUID for every instance of, for example, the "RelatedTo"
Association, given that the RegistryObjects that it relates themselves have
UUIDs.

Regards,  Dan

e-business Data Technology and Standard
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
Notes:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Internet:  dtchang@us.ibm.com
VM:          IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
Phone:    (408)-463-2319


                                                                                                          
                    Farrukh Najmi                                                                         
                    <Farrukh.Najmi       To:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS                         
                    @sun.com>            cc:     Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com>, "Len Gallagher    
                                          (by way of Len Gallagher <<LGallagher@nist.gov<LGallagher/C     
                    08/10/01 12:10        =)"/, "regrep@lists.oasis-open.org"                             
                    PM                    <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>                                   
                                         Subject:     Re: Call Tomorrow (Len's rethinking)                
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          




Dan,


The decision to update RIM is predicated upon a vote per yesterday's
meeting.
We are giving people some time to digest the proposed changes as described
by
thread started at:

If/when we decide to do so, I volunteer to update the RIM to 1.1 with the
proposed changes within 3 working days.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200108/msg00006.html

The reason for treating Association and Classification as RegistryObjects
is
to allow them to themselves be capable of being described by dynamic
metadata
(classification, association, packaging, external linking, external
identification, slots etc.).

It has proven to be very useful to be able to attach dynamic metdata to
Associations and Classifications. Consider the case whe a Classification
may
be itself classified to provide context for the classification. See Context
specific classification section in RIM 1.0

Another lesser consideration is that changing Association and
Classification
to not be derived from RegistryEntry and therefor not allowing dynamic
metadata is going to have serious impact on other parts of the spec and
will
be a difficult change to absorb.

If you feel strongly on this point then let us start a separate thread to
discuss this.



Dan Chang wrote:

> Farrukh and Len,
>
> I am glad to see that not all things are RegistryEntry. I have had a
> concern about that and have raised an issue on it.
>
> But I am still concerned that all (or almost all, since I haven't seen
the
> revised RIM spec I can only guess) things are RegistryObject. My
> understanding is that a RegistryObject (unless it got changed) has a
UUID.
> For Association and Classification, for example, which are UML
association
> classes, I don't believe it is reasonable to require that they must have
> UUID.
>
> BTW, do you plan to send out a revised RIM for review and comment soon?
>
> Regards,  Dan
>
> e-business Data Technology and Standard
> IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
> Notes:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet:  dtchang@us.ibm.com
> VM:          IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
> Phone:    (408)-463-2319

--
Regards,
Farrukh




#### najmi.vcf has been removed from this note on August 10 2001 by Dan
Chang