Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Joel,

You have a strange way of lurking :-)

How about some sort of configuration attribute in the organization 
definition which toggles this behavior?  I like being able to give the 
option on a installation to installation basis.  For example, our 
registry is used in one place where organizations are used to represent 
departments or some internal partitioning scheme.  In this case, I want 
associations to be quick and easy.  Its also used in a place where 
multiple organizations maintain their own profile, much like a typical 
UDDI installation.  I would want strict association in that particular 
case so that copyright and ownership of information doesn't become an 
issue.

-Matt

On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:21  AM, Munter, Joel D wrote:

>
> Although I have no official standing in this TC, as an observer and 
> previous
> participant, I voice strong objection to this proposal.  The argument 
> that
> it is "...too much of a burden to keep up with..." is weak.  I would 
> not
> want someone to stake a claim to having some association to my company 
> and
> force me to do something about it to keep that invisible.  I think that
> acceptance of this proposal negates and undermines the entire purpose 
> of
> associations.  I strongly suggest that you look at this much more 
> thoroughly
> and offer a more complete proposal for resolution.  Maybe there is a 
> way to
> make it easier on the users.  e.g., Send a note/message to the target
> partner key contact when an assertion is made and offers a time limit 
> for
> the response with a default state of deny.
>
> Joel (still lurking) Munter
> Intel Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
>
>
> Team,
>
> Based on both user and implementation experience the feedback we have
> been receiving on Extramural associations is that it is too restrictive
> to require that an Extramural Association (an association between
> objects owned by two different parties) must be confirmed by both
> parties before it is visible to the general public. The problem is that
> it is too much of a burden for parties to keep up with the confirmation
> task. Another problem is that hiding unconfirmed associations is
> difficult to implement and quite inefficient.
>
> I would like to propose that we make the following changes in V3
> regarding Extramural Associations:
>
> -Extramural Associations that have not been confirmed must be visible 
> to
> all and should not be invisible
>
> Note that anyone can still see the attributes isConfirmedBySourceOwner
> and isConfirmedByTargetOwner to determine the confirmation status and
> decide whether they trust this Association or not.
>
> The proposed change is quite simple to spec, will make the registry 
> more
> user friendly and will also greatly simplify implementation. It can be
> done ijn a backward compatible way with no schema canges required.
>
> Please share your thoughts.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>