[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
Joel, Your strong objection is noted. With my XMLG hat on (XMLG being a vendor of an ebXML Registry implementation), I don't share the strong objection with you because I feel some flexibility on this issue adds a degree of value to a large cross-section of deployments I've seen to date. -Matt On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Munter, Joel D wrote: > > As I have many times before with this TC, I have stated strong > objections to > a proposal and offered pretty good reasons for doing so. imho, for the > reasons previously stated, "yet to be approved" associations should > never be > visible. I will not be swayed by email exchanges and look forward to > reviewing a well thought out and reasoned approach to real and > perceived > problems. > > Joel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@xmlglobal.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:12 AM > To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association > > > Joel, > > One thing to consider is that Farrukh's proposal suggests that > yet-to-be-approved associations be visible, but there is still a means > to determine whether both organizations have accepted the association. > > The specification could merely specify that associations that are not > yet approved must be represented as such in any user interface. I'm > not sure if this suggestion is kludgy or not, but I think it would be > sufficient. > > Cheers, > > Matt > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:55 AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote: > >> >> >> Munter, Joel D wrote: >> >>> I would not >>> want someone to stake a claim to having some association to my >>> company and >>> force me to do something about it to keep that invisible. >> >> Just to clarify... >> >> Under the proposed change all Associations will always be visible to >> everyone (barring a custom Access Control Policy). Any viewer will be >> able to access for themselves whether t he Association is confirmed >> and by which parties. Specifically, there will be no ability under the >> proposal for Party A to "do something" that would "keep that >> (Association) invisible". >> >> The proposal essentially says: "Label the product and let the buyer be >> aware". To use an analogy the V2 way would mean that cigarrete stores >> would have to hide cigarretes from the eyes pregnant women and teh >> proposed change would mean that they can display it in full sight of >> teh pregnant women as long as there is a label that says that pregnant >> women are at risk for using that product. >> >> Hope the anology makes things clearer. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC