Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item

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

Steve,

I think Monica's original reply to you is misleading here.

The creation of the UUID value is not mandated to
the registry system.  If you are using a registry system - then
internally within the registry it will create UUID references
for its own uses.  Obviously a modelling system
or other tool can assign UUID values too as needed.
However - there is a further clarification here - we're using
GUIDs and IDrefs within the ebBP itself - and these of
course are assigned by the ebBP tools.  As you suggest
you can easily use a URI as a UID value to within a
ebBP to suit your own purposes.

The Registry does also support the use of External IDs and
UID values with the RIM - so while this is not called out
and done as natively perhaps as one would wish - it does
however nevertheless work equivalently.

Hope that makes things a little clearer here.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com>
To: "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "'ebXML BP'"
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Duane Nickull'" <dnickull@adobe.com>;
"'Farrukh Najmi'" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting
Item


> Monica,
>
> Thanks for your response.  One point I strongly disagree with:
<recognizing
> that the UUID would be assigned by the registry (not the business process
> itself)>.  If the registry does that then we face severe interoperability
> problems between federated registries - as well as human "unfriendly" IDs.
> Identifiers for registry objects should be URIs that are derived from the
> model and so should be publisher assigned and should be the same,
> irrespective of which registry node they are published to.   I think I
have
> said before that, despite my liking of ebXML regrep in general, there is
one
> thing that the uddi group have done better and that is publisher assigned
> keys and the key partition framework.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Capell
> Red Wahoo Pty Ltd
> +61 410 437854
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 8:21 AM
> To: ebXML BP; Duane Nickull; Farrukh Najmi
> Subject: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 6/2/2004: [RSD] Comment on WI-43-66 Voting Item
>
> Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.WI43-66-Name and Name ID Clarification;
> Topic|;
> Point|Use of UUID;
>
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200406/msg00000.html;
>
>
>
> mm1@
> Steve,
> Thanks for the input and contribution.  As for the vote, all members of
> the TC are eligible to vote here (observers or not), so please proceed.
>
> We did discuss the use of UUID and the xsd:id.  The latter could be
> perceived as an external identifier specific to the parties and their
> interactions.  That does not preclude the creation of a UUID for
> registry purposes. The Reg/Rep team, and the CC/Reg Review subteam, have
> been discussing that both may be important, recognizing that the UUID
> would be assigned by the registry (not the business process itself).
>
> I've cc: Farrukh Najmi and Duane Nickull on this email so they are aware
> of the discussion (as they have been involved in past communication). In
> order for ebBP to support the <documentation>  attribute you specified,
> we would have to establish a variable that could acquire the UUID when
> the process definition is stored
> (which is may or may not be).
>
> I'll open the discussion to the team to consider your suggestion and the
> other associated criteria.
>
> Thanks.
> @mm1
>
>
>
>
>