[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [bdxr] Re: [bdxr-comment] Public review comments for bdx-smp-v1.0-csprd02: 2.4.4 On SchemeIdentifiers
|
Dear Martijn As promised I am letting you know that the OASIS BDXR TC yesterday formally approved a comment resolution log, including the comment received from you during the Public Review of SMP 1.0. The approved comment resolution log is available here: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/58258/bdx-smp-v1.0-csprd02-comment-resolution-log%2020160531.xls And an updated working draft of the specification, including the adopted resolutions is available here: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/58374/bdx-smp-v1.0-wd09.zip The above working draft was furthermore approved by the TC as a Committee Specification Draft, and in the coming days we will be voting on approving the Draft as Committee Specification. On behalf of the TC I’d like to thank you personally, and the Australian Digital Business Council in general for all your input to the TC - both with your comment to our public review and
through the many constructive conversations we’ve had this year. It was also a great pleasure for me personally to attend John McAlister’s presentation at the Exchange Summit in Orlando earlier this month and to see the work products of this TC centrally placed
on the Australian road map. Best regards, Kenneth From:
<bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kenneth Bengtsson <kbengtsson@efact.pe> 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]