Re: [regrep] Issue with UUID's for Core Components and BIE's

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

David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> Farrukh,
> 
> I know we've had this disagreement before.  I'm not
> arguing with you from the registry engineering PoV -
> I understand why the registry itself needs these UUID
> keys internally.
> 
> It's the way they get used externally that frankly does
> not meet the business use case of things like CCTS,
> CPA, BPSS, CAM and more.
> 
> Your point about the 16 bytes reminded me of another
> big issue -using these UUIDs you also need to avoid
> embedding the URL for the registry too - making this
> even more ugly (what if you need to relocate your registry
> to a new server?).
> 
> Here's an example from Duanes code - I count a lot
> more than 16 bytes here:
> 
> "urn:uuid:4a593056-3509-0766-2e7b-4e154030423f"

Going back to my bits-and-bytes OS roots for a second (I used to love
reading binary and hex):

This *is* actually exactly 16 bytes. Each character (minus the dashes)
is a hex value representing 4 bits - from 0 (0000) to f (1111), or - in
base 10 - from 0 to 15. I've reproduced it below, with each pair of
characters representing a single byte. The "|"'s delineate sets of 4
bytes, for a total of 16 bytes:

"4a 59 30 56 | 35 09 07 66 | 2e 7b 4e 15 | 40 30 42 3f"

Don't worry, I won't go down the road of telling you what exact number
this is...;)

Joe 
> By comparison the UID system is available to
> prevent having to do all this syntax mucky-muck.
> Using the character code prefix - the Registry is
> referenced via an ALIAS and therefore the
> physical address location can be easily and
> quickly changed by assoicating the alias to the
> registry address - and the UID values themselves
> can be assigned simply and easily with a code
> that makes sense to the
> business functional users, and can be versioned
> and sub-versioned directly.
> 
> Example UID:   USPS020015
> 
> United States Postal Service BIE - in the 20000
> series - all of which relate to Mailing Address
> structure elements, and so on.
> 
> And then UID:  USPS020015:01:03
> 
> is version 01, sub-version 03 - of that same BIE
> structure - where say the country codes have been
> updated for the new members of the EU countries.
> 
> This is why we put the EXTERNAL ID functionality
> in the Registry RIM - and that is why we should be
> recommending people use it for CCTS and other
> content referencing needs.   It provides domain-centric
> labelling of content and that is a very good thing that
> we should be advertizing as an excellent feature.
> 
> The UUID takes us backwards - that's how we
> ended up with EDI in the firstplace - completely
> dictated by machine level technology devices and
> mechanisms - instead of business use
> case needs.  The whole point of CCTS is to move
> beyond machine level stuff to a higher business
> neutral system.  Using UUIDs is like thorns on a rose
> IMHO here.
> 
> Thanks, DW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
> To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
> Cc: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>; "UN/CEFACT Core Component WG"
> <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Issue with UUID's for Core Components and BIE's
> 
> > David RR Webber wrote:
> >
> > >I hope this is the last and final time we have to have this discussion
> > >around erroneous use of UUID values as external linkage identifiers
> > >to registry content - they are for INTERNAL use only - and should
> > >be used for such programmatic pointer uses only within the API
> > >to registry.
> > >
> > I respectfully disagree. The UUID based URN (urn:uuid:....) should be
> > used to
> > uniquely reference an object internally or externally. I agree that for
> > human
> > consumption you may want some ExternalIdentifier such as a human
> > friendly URN.
> > But strictly for reference purposes (internal or external to registry) I
> > still
> > suggest using UUID based URNs.
> >
> > >I understand the tempatation to make your Java code
> > >easier to write by burying all these UUIDs into the access method
> > >to the registry - as a quick kludge - but you have to remember the
> > >central tenet of computer software - its supposed to make work
> > >easier for human operators - not harder!   Not to mention the
> > >ludicrous overhead associated with a 128 byte boat anchor to
> > >what is often less than 30 bytes of information....
> > >
> > >
> > Oops, I think you meant to say a "16 byte boat anchor" not a "128 byte
> > boat anchor".
> > Which is definitely less than "30 bytes of information".
> >
> > To be clear... A UUID is 16 bytes not 128 bytes.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton