[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: call for vote
Team, I forgot one other major issue with the current proposal that I have is the introduction of PathElement and Level in the model and in query syntax. I have shown with XPATH syntax neighter is necessary in the proposal below: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-query/200110/msg00010.html Farrukh Najmi wrote: > I vote as follows: > > 1. NO > > Reason is that we cannot remove this section until all of its functionality is > covered by filter query proposal. > Please see my message: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-query/200110/msg00009.html > > and Len's response acknowledging the limitations: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-query/200110/msg00014.html > > 2. No. Same reasons as No vote on (1) > > 3. YES > > Team, I would like to emphasize that I have tried to work out these issues in a > constructive manner. It seems that there is no > recognition that the missing functionality is necessary. The missing > functionality is essential to many use cases > and many of those use cases are supported by other registry specifications. > > I will be glad to change my vote to a Yes vote if we can have a > RegistryObjectQuery > that allows queries based on dynamic metadata defines on RegistryObject (Slot, > Classification, Association, ExtrenalLink, ExternalIdentifier) as well as > filters on the static attributes of RegistryObject (id, name, description). > > Note that the above condition for a Yes vote is much less than the list of > things I wanted to see improved. I have offered compromises > at every step but have regrettably not seen any reciprocity. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > Dan Chang wrote: > > > Team, > > > > Please vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN on each of the following proposals. Please > > vote by the end of 10/10. Thanks: > > (1) Remove Section 8.1. > > Rationale: Per our agreement and work, the functionality provided by > > Section 8.1 is now fully supported by the revised Section 8.2. > > (2) Adopt the revised Section 8.2. > > Rationale: The revised Section 8.2, as proposed by Len, is consistent > > with the draft RIM 1.1 and has no major issues left unresolved. > > Background: On page 6, HasPathBranch is left with three alternatives, > > with the following understanding: > > (a) PathFilter: This is completely specified given Len's new > > proposal to add ClassificationNode.getLevelNumber() in RIM. > > (b) XpathNodeExpression and PathElementFiler: These will be > > removed unless their associated issues are resolved in time. > > (3) Move Section 8.4 to Section 8.1. > > Rationale: Ad Hoc Query covers FilterQuery and SQLQuery and should be > > discussed before them. > > Result: Section 8.4 will be left empty and to be fixed editorially > > later. > > > > Regards, Dan > > > > Metadata Management Technology and Standard > > IBM DBTI for e-Business > > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > > Phone: (408)-463-2319 -- Regards, Farrukh
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh Najmi end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC