Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with idandnameissue

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Kenji,

I'm 100% in agreement with your note here - I just did not
word it this way!   That's why I see GUID is not mandatory,
but discretionary.

And as you note - the GUID / UID system can be tailored to
existing best practices within a community of interest.

The XML rendering of Context illustrates this well IMHO -
where the links that need to reference external artifacts can
use those referencing systems; whereas the local definitions
do not need to be qualified.

We need to allow people to use what works best for them,
while providing sensible guidelines for people coming new
to everything and who need some baselines to work from.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>
To: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with
idandnameissue

<snip> Question is "what should the boundary of ID for each XML element be?
> Does it satisfy the requirements to construct globally unique ID by
> combining locally scoped IDs?"

> We do need globally unique IDs to reference a particular business
> process description stored in the registry/repository, but IMO, it is
> not necessary for each XML element in BPSS itself to have a globally
> unique identifier. Building GUID require extra work by authors/tools.
> Possibly overkill.
> We can construct GUID by combining multiple locally scoped IDs with
> BPSS document URI --- a la  filesystem path -- and I think this is a
> method eBA suggests.

> Regards,
>  Kenji
</snip>