[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: more Re: [ebxml-cppa] A big issue
Agreed, but natural language strings are a little harder to maintain if there is to be any guarantee of uniqueness. The important thing from my perspective is that while unique, a UUID by itself needs something in the way of a domain of authority giving it use outside the context in which it is created. Cheers, Chris Hayes, Brian wrote: > 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> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC