+1
On 03/23/2010 11:09 AM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
20100323080909.dc066b1d4d2e0a1a65719ae85a8071e6.a1498f007f.wbe@email.secureserver.net"
type="cite">
Sander,
I agree.
No need to restrict this too much for users - instead need to
offer clear guidelines on schemes to use to derive consistent URNs.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ebcore] PartyId Type remark
From: Sander Fieten <sander@fieten-it.com>
Date: Mon, March 22, 2010 4:46 pm
To: "ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org" <ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org>
All,
The remark I tried to explain on last Friday’s call is about the
general structure of the URN that’s being specified. As I already
mentioned in my earlier e-mail about the first draft the general scheme
looks like
urn:oasis:tc:ebcore:partyid-type:[<catalog-identifier>:]<scheme-id
within catalog>. The section on forming URN’s based on the ISO6523
scheme are not [all] consistent with this scheme.
Furthermore I think this general scheme can be used generally and not
restricted to the three schemes currently defined in the draft. This
would allow greater flexibility. For example this allows easy extension
to government regulated schemes, like personal or businesses
identification numbers. If we don’t want to create an “open ended”
scheme, I think it can be usefull to add a category for such government
regulated naming schemes.
Regards,
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
|