[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Meeting reminder and agenda for meeting TODAY
In advance of this meeting, I have posted the latest draft of the CC-Review STC work on the SC website. This work is still not ready for comments but getting very close. It has been substantially worked on since the last version (0.2) and is now in version 0.78. I can introduce the document during the conf call today if required. Requirements: Someone to put into OASIS format (editing work). Someone to re-write the XML Schema (not yet but soon). Reviewers Duane 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 > > 3. eGov report > > 4. WSRP report > > 5. SCM subcommittee report > > 6. cc Review subcommittee report > > 7. Specs status > > 8. Proposal for more flexible object ref > <<Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef>> > 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. > > -- Senior Standards Strategist Adobe Systems, Inc. http://www.adobe.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]