RE: [ebxml-bp] Yunker/Nagahashi 1/26/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF / Versioning

["Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>]

I can support Kenji's proposal.  His proposal provides capability for both of the use cases I am concerned about.  For explicit linking it identifies a specific version of a BPSS document, allowing specification of guaranteed integrity of a larger set of linked BPSS, and by the NameID it also allows semantic identification of an alternate set of BPSS implementations which MAY also support that specific subprocess identified by the NameID.

In other words, 
	1) use the globally unique BPSS ID to assemble a specific solution (specific linkage)
	2) use the nameID to locate a set of BPSS which may support a sub process (semantic linkage)

Talk to you at 12:00

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:21 AM
To: Kenji Nagahashi; Jean-Jacques Dubray; Yunker, John
Cc: Dale Moberg; ebXML BP
Subject: [ebxml-bp] Yunker/Nagahashi 1/26/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF / Versioning



> mm1: Kenji,
> With this proposal and today's TC call and vote, can you agree on
> final verbiage with John Yunker to ensure we capture his comment on 
> name (item 3 below):
>
>    * Leave specification as is.
>    * Do not specify what UID is.
>    * ***Clarify: Can use name and perhaps give example of a condition
> when used.***
>
> I have also attached John's response. I think we pretty much have
> consensus except for the versioning question, Work Item 7.

mm2: For Work Item 43, have you had any luck so we can discuss in 
today's call? In addition to the response from Dave Webber [1], I've 
also included the initial response from Reg/Rep. We should think 
carefully before embedding information as suggested. John, can we have 
your response so we can finish this (see ***clarify.....***)?

Related and for Work Item 7, in addition, the ebXML JC is considering a 
larger-scale compatibility matrix that may be affected by/affect our 
discussion on UID and/or versioning. We may also look to RIM on how it 
sees versioning as I think it will come to a common solution between all 
the ebMXL TCs at some point.

Thank you.

[1] attached

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>
>Subject:
>RE: [ebxml-bp] Nagahashi 1/7/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF
>From:
>"Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>
>Date:
>Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:12:47 -0800
>To:
>"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com
>CC:
>ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>BPSS components have a name attribute, and the reference elements 
>reference both a name and an ID.  Not sure what you mean by "not used 
>for referencing BPSS components".
>
>Since IDs change when versions change (there is no version element in 
>naming) and are maintained by software, the name reference is the only 
>element that allows binding over version, domain (e.g. industry group), 
>and usecase boundaries.
>
>Monica, I'm still in the midst of 2004 planning with all day meeting, 
>and appologize for not being on todays call.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
>Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:58 AM
>To: nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com
>Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Nagahashi 1/7/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF
>
>
>nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>>Nagahashi: Hi,
>>>
>>>- name attribute carries descriptive text only. It is never used for 
>>>referencing BPSS components. It is not required to be unique at all, 
>>>even within a package.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>mm1: Need input from John Yunker on this one.
>
>
>  
>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>mm1: We can discuss in today's call to come to closure. Thank you.
>
>  
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> Subject:
> Re: [ebxml-bp] Nagahashi 1/7/2004: Question on Construction of GUIDREF
> From:
> nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com
> Date:
> Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:50:05 -0800
> To:
> ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Sorry to be late. I was reading discussions on work item 43.
>Here's my proposal for resolution of the work item.
>
>There are two points to address:
>- double reference with name and nameID
>- uniqueness rule for nameID (or name), i.e. scope of nameID.
>
>Terms:
>- BPSS components: such as BinaryCollaboration, TransactionActivity.
>- GUID: general term for globally unique identifier. UUID is a specific
>example of GUID. Identifiers only unique within a document or package 
>are not GUIDs.
>- UUID: 128bit globally unique identifier defined by DCE. Used in ebRR. 
>
>Proposal:
>
>- Use only nameID for referencing BPSS components.
>
>- BPSS specification doesn't enforce any specific format for nameID.
>Author may use arbitrary text (as far as it satisfies other rules).
>
>- name attribute carries descriptive text only. It is never used for
>referencing BPSS components. It is not required to be unique at all, 
>even within a package.
>
>- Scope of nameID is a package. So reference to BPSS components (within
>the same document) MUST be qualified with package names. As a special 
>case, qualification is not necessary for reference to BPSS components in 
>the same package. This means nameID is not a GUID (as defined above) --- 
>so type name for nameID should not contain "GUID" to avoid confusion.
>
>- external descriptions (eg CPP/A) reference BPSS components by
>combination of 
>  1. globally unique identifier for BPSS document (eg. URL, or UUID 
>assigned by ebRR)
>  2. fragment = <package name> '.' <nameID>
>
>  (example: http://host.domain.com/brabra/process.xml#package.PO)
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Regards,
>Kenji Nagahashi
>  
>