OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-ccbp-analysis message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Registry object persistence; are BPs owned?

[Resending to ccbp-analysis:  it got rejected, I think I botched the
listserv address.]

The TP discussion about XML-DSIG hashing into specific business process
artifacts, and how the transaction breaks if a referenced BP changes or its
URI dies, is worth mentioning here for other reasons.  

>> From: Moberg, Dale <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:51 PM
>> * * *
>> That means that never removing process specifications from
>> from registries has definite CPA lifetime management advantages, 
>> as well as always pointing to a stable registry provider! And just 
>> think of how much storage vendors will like this opportunity for 
>> keeping process specifications forever!

Hmm.   Archetypal logical business processes should be incapable of
copyright.   However, implementation guides probably are not -- somebody
did the sanding to join all those rough inter-implementation edges.  It is
possible that entities will offer access to proprietary BP patterns or
components, in a proprietary registry.     

Here is where we are going, I think:  

(1)  Owners of BPs incorporated by a URI reference can, by removing or
changing them at the source location, functionally "turn them off".  
(2)  Users of BPs are sensitized to their need to either 
    (a)  use open source BPs and make sure they're backed up,
    (b)  use BPs they own or can control themselves, or 
    (c)   rent 'em, so to speak, and understand that their run-time
validity exists at the sufferance of their modelling "landlord."

It's a bit jarring to think about a shifting, changing base of IPR-limited
objects up in the registries.  But in my view this is the natural
free-market result of the RA and TA saying that ebXML registries MAY, but
are NOT REQUIRED to, share contents.   

I'm OK with that, I just want to get it out in the open for discussion.
The  result is that there will be no permanence or consistency requirements
imposed (by the standard) on any registry donations,  
o t h e r  t h a n  the "common business process/core component" seeds
being cooked up in CC).   Sounds like a different world view than Dale's.
Everyone OK with this?  


James Bryce Clark
Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP 
310 586 2404    jbc@lawyer.com    

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC