OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebcore message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ebcore] Groups - PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt uploaded

Title: Re: [ebcore] Groups - PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt uploaded

I know that there’re different form to indicate the same catalog [within the ISO6523 scheme] in the legacy notation with the “ebxml-cppa” prefix. But what I don’t understand is why we should “port” all these notation to the new “ebcore” prefix. If parties have to make a conversion they can also convert to one new uniform notation. As I already mentioned I think this makes it more uniform and easier to use.

Furthermore I don’t know if the oasis NID should be used if people want a formal URN for identifying the catalog. As I mentioned earlier the formal oasis namespace is to be used for identification of documents created by OASIS. It isn’t meant to identify registries outside of OASIS. I think this is relevant when the formal aspect of the URN’s  is important to users. I would also expect that the organisations that maintain these registries should have interest in registering a namespace for themselves. In my opinion that would be the right way to create formal URN’s. The oasis based URN could help to create uniform URN’s but not formal ones.


On 31/03/2010 21:47, "Pim Eijk, van der" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote:


From: Sander Fieten [mailto:sander@fieten-it.com]
Sent: 31 March 2010 17:47
To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebcore] Groups - PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt uploaded

Hi Pim,

You write that the different notations for the ISO6523 are historically grown. But since we define a new prefix  here using “ebcore” instead of “ebxml-cppa" I would think this only applies to the old prefix. With the new prefix we can define just one notation to make it easier to construct URN’s for ISO6523 registered catalogs and make the URN’s more consistent with the general scheme used for the other registries.
Previously in the CPPA days we provided three options to specificy an ISO 6523 identifier.  The URN is updated since we are now ebCore, plus there are the other two catalogs added.  We don't know which of the three options users of ISO 6523 catalog would prefer to use in the "ebcore" prefix.  I proposed the"iso6523" prefix in the CPA days, and it is probably my preference. But the other notations were the ones originally proposed, so there may be other opinions. Since we don't know those opinions, the safe option is to support all three options.   It is also easier to spec it this way:  Section 2.2 describes the process, and section 2.6 basically says: it is OK to substitute "ebxml-cppa" for "ebcore".  Anything different would cause the spec (to appear to be) more complex.   And supporting the current spec is trivial effort, as any implementers just need to load a code list. We can do the work for them: see the attachment (derived from Dale's work of August last year).

Of course other catalogs and schemes can be defined using the “unregistered” prefix or register their own URN namespace. But doesn’t that also apply for the three schemes in the spec. If there is a need to have a formal URN for these registries shouldn’t they apply for a formal namespace with IANA?

Yes, because there are users that have expressed an interest in these three catalogs and in using the "oasis" NID for it. These three catalogs are ISO standards that are widely used and that we can support without any concern. This whole exercise was about supporting these users.  This spec allows us to identify hundreds of millions of businesses, so I doubt this spec will need to be updated in the next few years.   But if there is a need, we can review it for future versions.  In the mean time,  let's not pollute the proposed namespace by adding a way to get any "bar" scheme in catalog "foo" in that is not explicitly tagged as "unregistered".


On 31-03-10 09:55, "Pim Eijk, van der" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote:

Comments inline.


From: Sander  Fieten [mailto:sander@fieten-it.com]  
Sent: 31 March 2010 09:12
To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: [ebcore] Groups - PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt uploaded

From the earlier e-mails I understand that (part of)  the purpose of this spec is to provide a formal URN notation for PartyId type.  I already noted earlier that the oasis NID is formally to used for identifying  document from OASIS TC’s. When we discussed this earlier it was said the  proposed urn are acceptable for OASIS, but is this still the case If the  formal aspect is important?

Why are different notations used for the  ISO6523 scheme? Why not only specifiy  urn:oasis:names:tc:ebcore:partyid-type:iso6523:<ICD of catalog> ? I  think this would make the specification clearer as there’s only one notation  for each catalog.
This is because  of the history of this spec.  There are communities that use the  variants. We want to continue to support them, although the notation based  "iso6523" is the most concise one.

And also mentioned earlier I  would prefer the scheme part of the urn not to be restricted to the three  registries now described but just leave it open to users.

This is fully  supported via branches of the "unregistered" case.  It is important to  distinguish the three internationally standardized catalogues from arbitrary  other homegrown or proprietary catalogues. If communities want a formal URN  and want to use this spec but don't like to be in an "unregistered" branch,  let them go to IANA themselves and register their own  NID.


On 31/03/2010 01:12,  "Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>  wrote:

Next  ebCore telecon is this Friday, April 2nd. Please  review prior to our  meeting.

Kathryn Breininger
Manager,  Document  Authoring & Release
Product Standards Office
Boeing  Research  & Technology
The Boeing Company

MC  62-LC
425-965-0242  desk
425-512-4281 cell
425-237-4582  fax

-----Original  Message-----
From: pvde@sonnenglanz.net [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent:   Monday, March 29, 2010 12:56 PM
To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:   [ebcore] Groups - PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt uploaded

Please  review for  the next ebCore TC meeting and send any comments to the  list.  I do hope  we can vote this as (cd2) and as  PRD1.

 -- Mr. Pim van der  Eijk

The document  revision named PartyIdType-1.0 v0_4.odt has been  submitted by Mr. Pim  van der Eijk to the OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC document  repository.   This document is revision #2 of OASIS ebCore Party Type   v0_1.odt.

Document Description:

View Document  Details:

Download   Document:

This   document is revision #2 of OASIS ebCore Party Type v0_1.odt.  The   document details page referenced above will show the complete revision   history.

PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work  for you,  your email application may be breaking the link into two  pieces.  You may  be able to copy and paste the entire link  address into the address field of  your web browser.

-OASIS Open   Administration

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:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]