[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Meeting reminder and agenda for meeting TODAY
Katrhryn, I have a one time conflict today due to which I will not be able to attend. Please see brief reports below... Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: >This is a reminder and the agenda for our telecon Thursday, June 24th, >from 1:30-3:30. > >Call in information is below. > >USA domestic toll free number: 1-866-235-8350 >International number: 206-655-2988 >Pass code: 669014# >Here is the phone number for the operator if you have any problems: >206-655-2254. > >Agenda: > 1. Minute taker > > 2. Approval of minutes from last meeting > > No issues > 3. eGov report > > -An initial direct mapping from the eGMS vocabulary has been proposed to ebRIM. -Sample SubmitObjectsRequest illustrating the mapping has been provided -The registry will be deployed in UK Office of e-Envoy in the next 2 weeks -Next steps will be to load eGMS content and metadata into registry using proposed direct binding from eGMS to ebRIM -Most of the content will be XML Schemas initialy -Registry will be based upon freebXML Registry 3.0-alpha2 that was recently announce > 4. WSRP report > > No new version of doc has been posted. Nothing new to report. > > 5. SCM subcommittee report > > -Cancelled last weeks meeting due to lack of prep time. -Next steps are to finalize the Use Case document and send it for TC review and then public review > 6. cc Review subcommittee report > > 7. Specs status > > -Making steady progress. Will speed up now that freebXML Registry 3.0-alpha2 is out -Hope to have version 2.6 available for TC review by end of month. > 8. Proposal for more flexible object ref > <<Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef>> > > Wish to retract this proposal based upon Nikola's suggested alternative way using Event Notification > 9. IHE ITI supplement > <<Re: [regrep] FW: [Fwd: IHE ITI Technical Framework Supplement >published for Public>> > 10. Update on Publishing Web Services > <<Re: [regrep] [Paper on Federated Registries] Re: [Fwd: Semantic Web >Services Architecture Committee Requirements Document]>> > 11. Survey discussion > > 12. Other issues/items > > 13. Next meeting > >Please let me know if there are additional items for the agenda. > > > >Kathryn Breininger >CENTRAL Project Manager >Emerging Technologies >Boeing Library Services > >425-965-0182 phone >425-237-3491 fax >kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef > From: > "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> > Date: > Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:46:14 -0700 > To: > "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> > > >Monica J. Martin wrote: > > > >>Farrukh Najmi wrote: >> >> >> >>>Nikola Stojanovic wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>><Farrukh> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>My proposal is to add a new logical id attribute to the set of >>>>>registry versioning attributes, and otherwise improving ObjectRef to >>>>>allow selection of a particular version of an object. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>+1 on being able to reference a logical object in a version independent >>>>manner. >>>> >>>>This is exactly what the lid attribute is for in the versioning spec >>>>being added to version 2.6. >>>> >>>>I think that the use case you raise can (and should) be addressed very >>>>easily by extending the ObjectRef class to have a choice of: >>>> >>>>a) a static "hard-wired" reference to a specific version of a specific >>>>object (current capability) >>>> >>>>b) a dynamic "late-binding" reference to a logical object which is >>>>determined at run-time (de-refence time). >>>>I could see this being done via a second attribute named "dynamic". >>>>When >>>>dynamic is false (default) the registry >>>>assumes that the id attribute references the referenced object. When >>>>dynamic is true, the registry assumes that the id attribute MUST be >>>>to a >>>>stored query that dynamically determines the referenced objects. >>>> >>>>This is a very powerful concept. Thanks Matt for seeding this idea. I >>>>hope we can discuss this over email prior to next telecon. Thanks. >>>> >>>></Farrukh> >>>> >>>>I also see this as a very valid and a needed Use Case and that >>>>LateBinding approach is interesting. However, I think that we have a >>>>solution that doesn't need LateBinding. It would be something like >>>>this: >>>> >>>>- subscribe to relevant event(s); in this case it is Update of the >>>>objects that are members of the package. >>>> >>>>- implement "Web Service" that is going to be triggered by the above >>>>event and that is going to adjust relevant object references. >>>> >>>>As one looks at the context of the two, LateBinding would incur >>>>lookups whenever object references need to be resolved and >>>>EventNotification will be invoked when relevant events happen. One >>>>would assume that occurrence frequency of the first is higher then >>>>of the second. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Interesting point that Matt's use case is already addressable via the >>>Event Notification feature. So as I understand your suggestion the >>>reference that needs to always be to the latest version of an object >>>could be updated from one version of an object to another by a web >>>service that is an Event Notification Listener service that gets >>>invoked whenever a new version of the object is created. >>> >>>I agree with the point that your alternative is more efficient than >>>late binding Object Reference approach and requires no additional work. >>> >>>I now reconsider the idea of doing late binding of object references >>>now. Instead we should keep it in our future candidate work items and >>>rely on your Event Notification based approach to address Matt's use >>>case for now. >>> >>>Any one disagree with this proposed resolution? >>> >>> >>mm1: I don't disagree but wish to ask a question that applies to not >>only late binding but the event notification approach where object >>references are updated. In ebBP, we found that LateBinding is not a >>black-white situation. For example, when we started to talk about >>conditional attributes such as time to perform, we determined that >>LateBinding could have a duration, may or may not be allowed, and >>constraints could be applied (when changed, if changed where does the >>value come from, etc). This raises questions: >> >> * Can you update the object references to the latest version? >> >> > >Yes. For the latest object at the time of update. > > > >> * Are there conditions that apply? Are all objects in the package >> updated? >> >> > >Lets focus on the simpler case of Object A wishing to reference latest >version of Object B. > >The answer is that: > >-If late binding is used then the object A updated when the object B is >updated since the late binding ObjectRef stays unchanged. > >-If event notification is used to update the reference in Object A then >Object A will be updated (and likely new version created) when Object B >is updated. > >This is a significant difference between the two solutions. > > > >> * Does the owner define the duration, parameters or constraints of >> when they can be changed? >> >> > >Object B can change any time its owner (or delegate) updates it. Object >A's owner (or delegate) controls the criterea for the dynamic reference >but has no control over when Object B is updated. > > > >>As well, in our work on time to perform, we found the conditional >>aspects to be best expressed as an element not an attribute. >> >> > >In the late binding approach the conditional aspects are expressed in a >stored query so an attribute with the query's id is sufficient. > >Thanks for the though provoking questions. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [regrep] FW: [Fwd: IHE ITI Technical Framework Supplement > published for Public > From: > "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> > Date: > Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:30:54 -0700 > To: > "Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com> > > >Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: > > > >>I am forwarding this request for review and comments on four supplements >>to the IHE ITI Technical Framework, rev. 1.0. Comments are due by July >>15th. We can discuss this at our next telecon as well. >> >> >> >> >FYI... > >The following is the link to the IHE specification which references the >ebXML Registry specs: > >http://www.himss.org/content/files/IHE_ITI_Cross-enterprise_Doc_Sharing_PC_2004-06-15.pdf > >This is great news for the adoption of our work. Congratulations to all. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [regrep] [Paper on Federated Registries] Re: [Fwd: Semantic Web > Services Architecture Committee Requirements Document] > From: > "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> > Date: > Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:44:56 -0700 > To: > <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> > > >Thanks for sharing Joe. > >This reminds me of the need for doing an update on the Publishing Web >Services TN to add details on how to publish QoS attributes for Web >Services and how to use those QoS attributes for Service discovery. Our >existing specs handle this use case already but the details need to be >spelled out. > >I propose we add this to our next TC meeting's agenda. Thanks. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]