[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [bdxr-comment] Public review comments for bdx-smp-v1.0-csprd02: 2.4.4 On SchemeIdentifiers
|
Thank you Martin, it’s a valid comment you’re making. The TC will convene next time May 25th to start working on comments received during the public review. At the end we will publish a
complete resolution log. I will keep you informed of the progress. Best regards, Kenneth From:
<bdxr-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Martijn van den Boogaard <martijn.vandenboogaard@gmail.com> IMPORTANT NOTE: Please make sure that you are subscribed to the
bdxr-comment@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list before submitting feedback with this form. For instructions on subscribing see
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=bdxr. Structure of the participant ID is not consistent with ebCore Party ID Type. Rather then using a PEPPOL example, why not use an OASIS example from ebCore Party ID Type? I found that the example from PEPPOL is not consistent with the ebCore standard.
A ebCore Party ID Type example would be: <cbc:ID schemeID="urn:oasis:names:tc:ebcore:partyid-type:iso6523:0088">4035811991021</cbc:ID> A PEPPOL example would be: <ParticipantIdentifier scheme="busdox-actorid-upis">0010:5798000000001</ParticipantIdentifier> It appears that in first case the scheme identifier is part of the scheme (type) of the id, in the second case the scheme identifier is part of the value (ID) part. I understand there are historical reasons why PEPPOL did it this way but
to stay consistent, wouldn’t it be less confusing to stick with the OASIS standard?
There may be an impact on existing implementations (one SMP implementation implements a rule that the ID part must consist of a scheme identifier and the ID). Which in any case should be a choice. Kind regards, Martijn van den Boogaard |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]