8/21 Review Issue #1: Resolution

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Team,

This is regarding the issues that came up at the 8/21 Registry TC review
of our work thus far. I'm going to list the resolution for each of the 6
issues separately, based on our discussions. I've made a final decision
in cases where the issue remained unresolved. Thanks to everyone for
their input.

This message is for Issue #1. Here is a rehash:

<Rehash>
ISSUE: Requirement [S1] states that Core Components should have a Unique
Identifier. In our Registry, we already have a 128-bit UUID. 

QUESTION: Will the UUID suffice? Or should this unique identifier be
more "human-readable", for example: "BCC00003" (Basic Core Component
#3).

Some references from CCTS spec:

p.65: The ebXML Unique Identifier is fully described in the ebXML
Technical Architecture Specification Version 1.04. Its construct is
fully specified in the ebXML Registry Specification 2.0.

p.75: Unique Identifier (mandatory): The identifier that references a
Core Component instance in a unique and unambiguous way.
</Rehash>

RESOLUTION: 

Because this is not a Core Components-specific issue, and because our
Registry specs address mechanisms for identification of
ExtrinsicObjects, we will not address this issue in our Technical Note.
We will state that Core Components and their associated entities are
represented as ExtrinsicObjects, and refer the reader to our Registry
specs for more details on ExtrinsicObjects. This will alleviate the need
to do double maintainance on specs - for example, for the upcoming
"identify ExtrinsicObjects by URN" enhancement.

Thanks,
Joe
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard