RE: [sdd] descriptorID - did we really decide to change it from optional to required?

["Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>]

Hi

I don't think that we came to a conclusion.  We were discussing the use
cases for non-unique uses.  That said, I am fine either with
descriptorID being optional or with stating that it must be unique
within the scope of use (which to me is very different from just stating
that it is unique.  To me, stating unique means globally unique, and
that can be a pain to do.)


Regards,
Debra

-----Original Message-----
From: julia@us.ibm.com [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:00 AM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] descriptorID - did we really decide to change it from
optional to required?

I would like to double check with the TC members - especially Debra - to
see if the minutes I recorded on the topic of the descriptorID are
accurate. I think they are, but I'd like to be sure before changing the
schema. Please read the text copied from the minutes below and send a
quick reply saying you if agree that this represents our decision.


IUDD/SDD descriptorID: "uniquely" is struck out? must it be uniquely
identified? ### We agree to change it to required and describe it as
unique within the scope that matters. ; This modifies the ACS proposal.
Keisuke thinks this change is acceptable.  The text should mention that
UUID is one possible type of value that could be used for descriptorID.