RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0

[Harald Hauschildt <hha@mosaic-ag.com>]

Hi Stefano, hi John, hi List!
I like to express my point of view to the UID-discussion below...I 
did that earlier during the review cycle...

The whole ebxml idea becomes much more clear at least to the 
(converter-)developers if
the term UID/GUID would be explicit used within the TA doc.
To distinguish the concept of ebxml from other concepts (e.g. 
BizTalk), to proof that
ebxml is not just another standard und to show to the world that we 
have learned from
the past 20 years of EDI(fact) the term of UID/GUID should be 
descripted within the
TA doc.
I agree with Johns comment that "UIDs are going to play a critical 
role in cross schema
interoperability and semantics" and that the TA doc should covers 
this topic as a bridge between
the different groups docs.
I agree also with John that "others would like to see [UID's covered 
by the TA doc] as well as evidenced by the recent flurry of emails 
over the use of UIDs"..........at least me.

Best wishes,

Harald

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////  
/////////////////////
Dr. Harald Hauschildt		email: hha@mosaic-ag.com
MOSAIC SOFTWARE AG		Tel: +49-(0)2225-882-425
Feldstr. 8			Fax: +49-(0)2225-882-201
D-53340 Meckenheim
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////  
/////////////////////



-----Original Message-----
From:	Stefano POGLIANI [SMTP:stefano.pogliani@sun.com]
Sent:	Monday, January 29, 2001 12:16 PM
To:	Petit, John; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0

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


 << File: ATT00001.htm >>