[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] Extramural Associations proposal
Hi Farrukh. I have a quick, and probably naive question about this proposal. What do we lose if we say that an Extramural Association is only valid and visible to the owner of that association? (unless specifically overridden) Then by default, a bilateral agreement must have been submitted by both owners. Also, this adresses Nikola's concern that a 3rd party association might not require confirmation. (That case is also evident in your dating service U.C., where you might not want the owners to have visibility) I think his idea has the same effect as you have proposed, but avoids having to overly complicate the confirmation process. -joel -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 11:43 AM To: Farrukh Najmi Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [regrep] Extramural Associations proposal Team, A few things about the extramural Associations proposal. This proposal fills a hole in our specifications. If we do not do it then by default it means that anyone can create associations with anyone else's objects and such associations would be visible to the whole world. The proposal makes some very focused and surgical enhancements to existing Association specification in RIM 1.1. It should be noted that there are no new attributes added. The main change is in defining the semantics when Associations is with RegistryObjects not owned by the creator of the Association. This is essentially providing missing semantic rules rather than a substantial re-design. One of the niceties of the proposal is that no new RS interface is added to provide a way for a party to confirm an Extramural Association to an object owned by them. The proposal simply says confirmation is done by the party submitting a cloned copy of the same Association using existing SubmitObjectRequest in RS. The only remaining change is the addition of a 4 convenience methods to Association class. In summary this proposal is a very low hanging fruit for V2 and is essentially a bug fix for existing functionality. Please share any concerns you may have and I will attempt to address them. I look forward to your support on this proposal. -- Regards, Farrukh Farrukh Najmi wrote: > Is attached per action item from today. Thanks for your consideration > given the short lead time. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: extramuralAssociationsProposal-Nov1-2001.pdf > extramuralAssociationsProposal-Nov1-2001.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: BASE64
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC