RE: Interface Primitives Draft V021.

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

speaking for myself only, i hope that you all can conduct this discussion
without copying the entire repository team.  this is very distracting.
scott neiman (as project lead for RR) should be intervening.  why dw chose
to copy mr. naujok is beyond me.  please, let's conduct the business of the
WG on the list service and not use it for this type of bickering.
thanks,
joel munter (intel)

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 6:15 AM
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Farrukh Najmi; ebxml repository; Klaus-Dieter Naujok
Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021.



I have taken the liberty to free my colleagues in TRP from this on going
soap
opera that is an embarrassment for me as
a member of RegRep and an embarrassment for me as a member of ebXML and
removed
ebxml transport from
the replyto of this message.

-Ideas should be put on the table in their proper working group and
positioned
as a proposal.
-They should not be (mis)represented in other working groups as works of the
proper working group.
-They should not contain misleading statements that position ones company's
product or specs as ebXML's products and specs.
-They should not contain technologies/protocols used by ones company as
ebXML's
supported and accepted technologies/protocols
-They should not be done as parallel universes to officially sanctioned
works
in the proper working group

RR has only 2 Sun reps. So far only one has been putting ideas on the table.
The other has been giving valuable feedback like all other team members. I
have
to belong to some company and it happens to be Sun. The ideas I have been
putting on the table would have been identical to what they are currently
had I
been working for another company. Two weeks ago we had no specs or propsals
on
the table. Where were you then?

--

Regards
Farrukh

David RR Webber wrote:

> 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.
> ><

--
Regards,
Farrukh