OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [regrep] Extramural Associations proposal

Hi Farrukh. I have a quick, and probably naive question about this

What do we lose if we say that an Extramural Association is only valid
and visible to the owner of that association? (unless specifically
overridden) Then by default, a bilateral agreement must have been
submitted by both owners. Also, this adresses Nikola's concern that a
3rd party association might not require confirmation. (That case is also
evident in your dating service U.C., where you might not want the owners
to have visibility)

I think his idea has the same effect as you have proposed, but avoids
having to overly complicate the confirmation process.



-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Farrukh Najmi
Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep] Extramural Associations proposal


A few things about the extramural Associations proposal.

This proposal fills a hole in our specifications. If we do not do it
then by default it means that anyone
can create associations with anyone else's objects and such associations
would be visible to the whole

The proposal makes some very focused and surgical enhancements to
existing Association specification in
RIM 1.1. It should be noted that there are no new attributes added. The
main change is in defining the
semantics when Associations is with RegistryObjects not owned by the
creator of the Association. This is
essentially providing missing semantic rules rather than a substantial

One of the niceties of the proposal is that no new RS interface is added
to provide a way for a party to
confirm an Extramural Association to an object owned by them. The
proposal simply says confirmation is
done by the party submitting a cloned copy of the same Association using
existing SubmitObjectRequest in

The only remaining change is the addition of a 4 convenience methods to
Association class.

In summary this proposal is a very low hanging fruit for V2 and is
essentially a bug fix for existing

Please share any concerns you may have and I will attempt to address
them. I look forward to your support
on this proposal.


Farrukh Najmi wrote:

> Is attached per action item from today. Thanks for your consideration
> given the short lead time.
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>                                                    Name:
>    extramuralAssociationsProposal-Nov1-2001.pdf    Type: Acrobat
>                                                Encoding: BASE64

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC