RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

John,

 

    two words on your comment on my comments:

 

"...I disagree with Stefano Pogliani’s comment to downplay UID references in the TA doc. The use of UIDs goes across several ebXML groups (CC, Registry, BP, etc)  and UIDs are going to play a critical role in cross schema interoperability and semantics.  As the TA doc should illustrate concepts that bridge several ebXML groups, UIDs should certainly be covered in the TA doc. In fact, I would like to see a bit more of an explanation of the UID mechanism for semantic translation of XML documents. Clearly this is something others would like to see as well as evidenced by the recent flurry of emails over the use of UIDs."

 

My comments raise from the following:

1. If CC, BP and CPA would require explicitely to use the UIDs, then this may be an "architectural" thing.
   In this case I would "move" the explanation of them outside of the RegRep since, as you note, it is a technology that spans different domains. At this point, I would make a paragraph somewhere saying that, whenever a Unique ID is required, then the GUID (or any other mechanism) will be used consistently and this same mechanism will be enforced by the RegRep.
2. If other teams do not need to explicitely reference UIDs, then it will be something inside the RegRep and it will be a technical implementation.

I am not saying to remove any and all of the occurrences of UID-related sentences. I am trying to say that this would need to be a fair small section that does not need to be repeated in too many places.

 

/Stefano

-----Original Message-----
From: Petit, John [mailto:jpetit@kpmg.com]
Sent: 29 January 2001 01:23
To: 'ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: Comments on TA doc V1.0

Here are my comments in Word format.

Cheers, John Petit
KPMG Consulting
XMLfs Team
Office: 970 728 9468
Mobile: 312 961 8956