RE: [uddi-spec] Removal of Section 2.3 keyName Changes - adding the capability of making keyName significant

["Luc Clement" <luc.clement@systinet.com>]

Daniel suggested the following restatement of the proposal:

It is proposed that a new find qualifier keyNameSignificant be added to control the significance of keyName in queries.  In keyNameSignificant mode all keyName attributes specified in keyedReference elements of a query would be treated as significant for the purpose of matching.

V3 ignores keyName in searches for all practical purposes, except when the corresponding keyedReference’s tModelKey refers to general_keywords category system, in which case keyName is required and is significant in all contexts.

 

keyNameSignificant is not active by default, consistent with V3 behavior.

We still need to justify this proposal through use cases else no work is planned to take this forward. We would like to get your input on this.

 

Luc

---

From: Luc Clement [mailto:luc.clement@systinet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 14:42
To: 'uddi-spec'
Subject: [uddi-spec] Removal of Section 2.3 keyName Changes - adding the capability of making keyName significant

Prior to today, Reqt/Prop 20 was suggesting that we allow keyName to be a significant query parameter. During the FTF, we could not find compelling use cases justifying adding this capability.

 

We would like to get your input on this. Section 2.3 was:

2.3 keyName Changes

Further, it is proposed that keyName become a significant query parameter.  V3 ignores keyName in searches for all practical purposes, except when the corresponding keyedReference’s tModelKey refers to general_keywords category system, in which case keyName is required and is significant in all contexts.  Making keyName significant in all searches in which it is specified would make keyName matching behavior consistent across the general case and the general_keywords case, taking away the (“magical”) special treatment of general_keywords.

Could the TC provide supporting arguments in favour or not of this requirement. As it stands, it's been removed from Prop 20 [1].

Luc

 

Luc Clément                       

Secretary, OASIS UDDI Spec TC

Systinet Corporation
Tel: +1.617.395.6798

 

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/7516/uddi-spec-tc-prop020-ExtendedFindQualifiersForBags-20040629.doc