Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Max,

Your suggestion makes sense to me.

-Matt
On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 12:00  PM, Max Voskob wrote:

> Hi everybody ;)
>
> Are you into a hot argument with Joel again?
>
> Having some experience with implementation of your specs I can say 
> that it
> won't be a trouble for a strong team with a fair budget to implement
> existing visible/invisible mode, however, making it visible won't harm 
> at
> all and it's obvious whether the association was confirmed or not. 
> Well, it
> can save a few $$$ on the development effort anyway.
>
> On the other hand, I would suggest to let every party set up maximum 
> pending
> time. If there is no response from one of the parties within that 
> period the
> request for the extramural association is being deleted. It will be 
> very
> easy to implement and the registry won't be littered with outdated 
> pending
> requests. Zero value of the max. pending time can mean that it's 
> unlimited.
> A minimal value (1 unit?) can mean that the organization is not 
> interested
> in any extramural associations and any request will be deleted with 
> the next
> scheduled job in the DB.
>
> Does it all make sense? ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <matt@xmlglobal.com>
> To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
>
>
>> Joel,
>>
>> One thing to consider is that Farrukh's proposal suggests that
>> yet-to-be-approved associations be visible, but there is still a means
>> to determine whether both organizations have accepted the association.
>>
>> The specification could merely specify that associations that are not
>> yet approved must be represented as such in any user interface.  I'm
>> not sure if this suggestion is kludgy or not, but I think it would be
>> sufficient.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:55  AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Munter, Joel D wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify...
>>>
>>> Under the proposed change all Associations will always be visible to
>>> everyone (barring a custom Access Control Policy). Any viewer will be
>>> able to access for themselves whether t he Association is confirmed
>>> and by which parties. Specifically, there will be no ability under 
>>> the
>>> proposal for Party A to "do something" that would "keep that
>>> (Association) invisible".
>>>
>>> The proposal essentially says: "Label the product and let the buyer 
>>> be
>>> aware". To use an analogy the V2 way would mean that cigarrete stores
>>> would have to hide cigarretes from the eyes pregnant women and teh
>>> proposed change would mean that they can display it in full sight of
>>> teh pregnant women as long as there is a label that says that 
>>> pregnant
>>> women are at risk for using that product.
>>>
>>> Hope the anology makes things clearer.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>