Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021.

[Yutaka Yoshida <Yutaka.Yoshida@eng.sun.com>]

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.
 > ><
 >