Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021.

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Klaus,

Can I please have an official clarification from the Steering Committee on
this.

As you can see from my original posting - I was indeed clearly stating that

my work is in alignment with and complimentary to the work being done
by Farrukh, and offered 5 numbered items to this effect.

The clarification I am formally seeking is I want it made clear
if in fact only employees of Sun Microsystems and IBM
(International Business Machines) Corp. are allowed to provide input to
 the Registry/Repository group as formal documents - or if other members
 are, from time to time, are allowed to submit <draft> documents detailing
ideas
 and concepts that they feel should be considered in the context of the
 work Sun and IBM are doing?

Also - is it acceptable for people who do not wish to use UML modelling
tools
to illustrate design concepts with alternate comparable methodologies?

Once we have this clarification, then I feel I can better understand how
one
can interact within the Registry / Repository working group.

Respectfully, DW.
===================================================================
Message text written by Farrukh Najmi
>
David,

I don't know what this document is and how it relates to RegRep. We do not
want to
create parallel universes in regrep. AFAIK I was assigned the task of
defining the RR
info model and registry services spec by Scott as an outcome of our last
meeting. I
am working very hard to do this. This sort of unsolicited activity creates
FUD (Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt) that is highly undesirable for us to make foreword
progress.
Please cease and desist. Scott, please weigh in as the team lead. I am very
frustrated by this sort of out of band activity. This needs to stop. I will
not have
it any more.

Look David. I thought we had a private conversation that we will work
together and
make this RR stuff work. What we need is to review the work that is already
on the
table. We do not need parallel documents that JUST CREATE FUD. I am so
frustrated
that I cannot even say a nice word about the hard work you have put into
whatever the
heck this document is.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

David RR Webber wrote:

> Attached PDF of V 0.21
>
> Some issues and next steps.
>
> 1) Figure out alignment with Farrukh's classification doc -
>      this does not look too tough - both are in alignment is my
>      assessment - and as Scott noted previously the section
>      2.3 to 2.5 fit.
>
> 2) More tough - design of classification structure samples -
>      this is an amalgumation of ebXML BP, ebXML CC and
>      GUIDE and OASIS/ISO11179 classifications.
>
>      I'm basically seeing this will take us a month of hard work
>      to do - we can't rush this.
>
> 3) I've made a good start on the interface Query/Response.
>      We can use <extensions> to place SQL as triggers so
>      that we can meet Farrukhs requirement for SUM, COUNT
>      et al for SQL based Repository sources by simply putting
>      this code inline as labelled SQL - this is a nice
>       compromise between XML and SQL sources.
>
> 4) Change Request is significantly harder.  So far I've made a
>      first cut on this.  I think we can get much closer with another
>      weeks work on this.  Michael Kass and Len Gallagher at
>      NIST can really help on this too.  There is a lot of supplemental
>      detail that needs to be resolved.
>
> 5) I've asked the TRP group to comment on DASL and TRP
>      transport to see what is the best approach here.   I've at
>      least identified the functional needs here - and we can
>      get the guru's in TRP to apply brainpower to the
>      challenges.   My personal thought on this is that we
>       need two mechanisms - but ones that are very similar
>       and related - use http, MIME, same tag names, so it
>       is easy for developers to co-exist both mechanisms
>       based on business functional implementation requirements.
>
> Last thought is I'm seeing that the pieces fit together thus:
>
> 1) Scotts Part 1 Spec
> 2) Scotts Part 2 Spec
>   2a) Farrukhs classification document
>   2b) My interfacing document
>   2c) TRP transport usage document
>
> I think we should review Farrukhs document on the conference
> call - and then tackle the interfacing document with a
> followon call.
>
> Thanks, DW.
><