RE: [ebxml-cppa] FW: How is Registry using OASIS NID

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Dale> In-line remarks below

Please see my comments inline (bracketed by <arvola>
</arvola>). -Arvola

<arvola>
The 2.0c version still has the schemaLocation attribute
section and in the examples because David wanted to respect
the wishes of participants in the interop trials not to
have to change their software.
</arvola>

Dale> It is not clear to me that there is any "issue" to be
resolved because both Messaging and Registry make use
of permitted conventions and use syntactially allowed values.
I think this is probably the case with what we have
currently done also. 

<arvola>
I have previously brought up as an issue to the MSG team
about using a URN based namespace in order to align with the
registry team. The decision was in favor of using a namespace
URI that is resolvable. Since I am maintaining the schema
for both MSG and CPP/A, a common approach is used for naming
the MSG and CPP/A namespaces.
</arvola>

Dale> I am not opposed to our current approach.
I am just providing our TC with an explicit
opportunity to log an issue and discuss it if they
think there is something that needs to be done. 

My own belief is that since what we are doing is syntactically
permitted, does provide one resolvable URL for a schema,
and does not violate any _current_ best practice procedures,
that there is no strong reason to log an issue. It seems
completely harmless that the ebXML TCs do some 
things differently also.