Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021.
David, I must admit it's pretty embarrassing that you stated "only Sun and IBM are allowed to provide the input". That is totally a misunderstanding. As far as I know, the only document we can review is Farrukh's one, so we are reviewing it right now - that's it. Since I am assigned to cater the interface, I just welcomed the actual specification we have on the table as a basis and I believe that all participants recognize what we are doing in that way. You seemed to mention that you provided the document, but I have never seen that in the regrep mailing list. Actually, I don't quite understand what your frustration is. Because you can certainly input your comments and discuss your idea in the conference call. Also, I strongly suggest that you be raising this kind of issue within the regrep group first instead of jumping to the SC. regards, yutaka yoshida > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:01:13 -0400 > From: David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021. > > 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. > >< >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC