Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry 2.0 review - feedback

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Chaemee,

Thanks for your feedback. Please see my comments inline with yours:


>I'm reviewing registry service spec 2.0.

>(1) In Figure 6, there is no "Updated" status in lifecycle.
>Is it right or missed?

There is currently no separate status of updated in RS 2.0. The only
status options are "Submitted, Approved, Deprectaed, Withdrawn". It did
not seem to be an Object state issue whether it had ever been updated.
Whether an object has been updated can be determined through its audit
trail.

>(2) In 8.4.2. GetContentResponse Message Structure,
>Is it GetContentResponseMessage?
>In message fragment, there is <GetContentRequest> instead of Response.

This is a typographical error. The title should be  "GetContentRequest
Message Structure". This will be noted in an errata document.

>(3) In 9.7. Access Control, there is only 3 role as Content owner,
registry administrator, registry guest.
>However, there is no consistency between 5.3. Registry Users, Table1.
Actors and Table11. Role.
>I think it's better to have some consistency to describe the role of
actors.

Sound right though I defer to Suresh. Will note for errata.

>(4) Do you have a plan not to provide RIM DTD anymore?
>From Developer's perspective, sometimes we need DTD instead of Schema.
>Some XML Binding SW doesn;t provide Schema yet.

The team decided that there will only be a normative XML Schema
definition and not a DTD. Reason is simple. It is a hopeless task to
keep two dialects of a schema of this size consistent. Believe me it is
hard enough keeping XML schema, RIM and SQL schema consistent without
some automtation.

If you or anyone else produced an equivalent DTD then we can post it on
the V2.0 web site as non-normative data.

>(5) Content based query in SQL Query
>Is there specific request & response for content based query in SQL
Query?

No there is no specific request & response for content based query in
SQL Query. It is non-normative and meant to be illustrative of the
direction we may take in V3 in this area. Vendors are not required to
support this feature.

Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. We look forward to your
comments on RIM 2.0.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

Chaemee Kim wrote:

> Dear all, I'm reviewing registry service spec 2.0. (1) In Figure 6,
> there is no "Updated" status in lifecycle.Is it right or missed? (2)
> In 8.4.2. GetContentResponse Message Structure,Is it
> GetContentResponseMessage?In message fragment, there is
> <GetContentRequest> instead of Response.
> (3) In 9.7. Access Control, there is only 3 role as Content owner,
> registry administrator, registry guest.However, there is no
> consistency between 5.3. Registry Users, Table1. Actors and Table11.
> Role.I think it's better to have some consistency to describe the role
> of actors. (4) Do you have a plan not to provide RIM DTD anymore?From
> Developer's perspective, sometimes we need DTD instead of Schema.Some
> XML Binding SW doesn;t provide Schema yet. (5) Content based query in
> SQL QueryIs there specific request & response for content based query
> in SQL Query? Good Luck!



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