RE: more Re: [ebxml-cppa] A big issue

["Hayes, Brian" <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>]

I understand what you are saying Chris.  We've seen the pattern of
identifier with corresponding authority identifier used in EDIFACT (have I
mentioned this before? :^).  I believe the Business Process Identifier
Naming Scheme proposed the use of URIs, perhaps as you suggest.  I am
planning to revise the proposal to be urn's; but of the form
urn:<agency>:...

Now the "..." could be a UUID or uuid:<uuid-value> (but, I find that a bit
brain dead since some natural language based string would be just as
effective).

I'm not sure if you want the URI to be an href (http://...).

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:40 PM
> Cc: CPPA
> Subject: more Re: [ebxml-cppa] A big issue
> 
> 
> More on the subject of use of UUID. UDDI also
> assigns UUIDs to all registered artifacts. At issue
> then is
> 	"what authority is the source of any given UUID?"
> 
> One reason that I favor use of URI for identifier is that
> it provides for a specifically identified resource. A UUID
> on its own requires further context in order that it be
> resolvable/dereferencable, whether via web protocols
> or what have you.
> 
> Last time I checked, there were no plans for replication
> w/r/t the ebXML reg/rep. There was some talk about
> federated requests, but I am not sure where that has gone
> recently.
> 
> Then of course there is also the notion of "private"
> registries (ebXML as well as UDDI).
> 
> The point that I am trying to drive home here is that
> in order for a UUID to be of any use, it needs to be
> provided with some context (the authority that issued
> it) so as to allow it to be dereferenced.
> 
> e.g. as an HTTP GET query
> 
> 	
> http://www.example.com/?UUID=BE3D2F08-CEB3-11D3-849F-0050DA1803C0
> 
> If it is necessary that the UUID value be usable separately
> from the URI itself, then go ahead and add an element/attribute
> that can hold the value on its own. Would recommend STRONGLY
> that it be qualified with some context (such as the URI of the
> authority that assigned it, etc.)
> 
> My $0.02,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bhaugen wrote:
> 
> > From: Christopher Ferris 
> > 
> > 
> >>I do feel strongly that a) the registry/repository should
> >>provide for URI resolution of artifacts stored within
> >>and b) that any runtime retrieval/resolution of
> >>artifacts such as the BPSS instance should be accessible
> >>via web protocols. 
> >>
> > 
> > I agree, and would prefer that everything in the extended
> > ebXML artifact space be accessible via Web protocols
> > (and I really mean normal HTTP Get).
> > 
> > I suspect this proposal has not exactly been
> > front-and-center in peoples' minds, though...
> > and may take some rethinking here and there
> > to accommodate.
> > 
> > -Bob Haugen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>