PartyId - was Re: Some Party questions

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

Please note the following from TP/Core -- this is one of the bridges
between CPAs and BPs that we need to make sure works.   I have high hopes
but am not yet certain, until we see some code tests.     Nita, do you have
a better intuition about this than I do?   (And I might add, in response to
Marty's comment that uniqueness of PartyIDs is required, "unique" within
what domain?  We'd better get any normative requirements for naming
conventions into the final 1.0 BPSS.) 

Jamie

>To: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:09:48 -0500
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Some Party questions>Cc: tboyle@rosehill.net,
ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
>
>This will be rejected by the ebxml-core list.  Someone please repost.
>
>Duane,
>
>Global uniqueness of a Party's CPPs is partially assured by the 
>uniqueness of the PartyId.  The question is what, if anything, needs to
>be prescribed to ensure that the CPPs are uniquely defined relative to 
>the PartyId.
>Possibly it is sufficient that if a Party's multiple CPPs are stored in a
>registry or repository, they are distinguishable by however the registry
>identifies them.
>
>TP team, please comment on any need to prescribe more on this.
>
>Regards,
>Marty