Jean-Jacques,
I'm not convinced that GUID has a sole ability in
the whole universe to alone
be able to provide a globally unique
value!!!
I can create something that's unique with a lot
less characters than 128 bytes!
Also - people out there have their own systems -
STEP, NATO, EPA, RFID just to mention
some. We should support these domain specific
systems and not force whole
industries to change from what they have already
been using.
So my take on this is - require a unique ID - note
that GUID is preferred, but not
mandated - and that other standard referencing
systems are acceptable provided
that the users are confident they will produce
unique values within their community
of interest (CoI).
Thanks, DW.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:24
AM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] Name and GUID
All elements
(documents, BTs, ...) created for a collaboration definition must be
uniquely identified to be further referenced.
Since BPSS is
destined to be used in a global environement, we cannot take the risks to have
IDs which are not GUIDs (software packages used at different locations could
be generate the same ID). In general most elements created to be
referenced will also be named.
References can be
defined either in terms of
a) names
(nameRef)
b) GUID
(guidRef)
References based
on GUID ensure that the element referenced will always be the same. If a new
version of the referenced element is created (with the same name but a
different GUID), the GUIDRef must be changed to point to the new version.
References based
on names offer more flexibility specialy in case where a logically identical
element is physically different in different context. For instance, a Process
PO collaboration can be defined for various industry but the PO format will be
the different for each industry. In this case, the PO document format will be
defined in a separate package that will be included into the collaboration
package in each case.
I don't think it
is required to have the named reference required when a guid is specified
(like it is in the BPSS 1.1 schema) and as Serm told us.
The remaining question was is
there some use cases where both a named and GUID-based reference are needed.
John, I must admit that I am still not very clear on when we would need to use
both at the same time. I can see that when you create a new version of an
element, the name may remain the same, but what do you gain in the first place
to use a GUIDRef if you know that this particular element will evolve and you
are going to end up in this situation? why not use just a named reference in
that case? As soon as you store the two references at the same time, they must
then remain in synch and if you create a new version, at that time, you know
for sure what is the old GUID and the new one.
I can see that you could use both, just in the case
where there is a risk to loose the file in which the element referenced is
lost. It might then be easier to find a new one by
name.
So I don't think we should make it EITHER a named
reference OR a GUID reference, having both should be allowed, but I don't see
any advantage of having both at the same time.
Jean-Jacques Dubray attachmate 3617 131st Ave Bellevue, WA 98006 tel: 425-649-6584 Cell: 508-333-7634
|