Re: External ID draft

[Farrukh Najmi <najmi@east.sun.com>]

David,

I will refrain from a pissing contest with you. As usual you are spreading
misinformation about Sun as if it is a well known fact. FWIW, Sun does not need
to share its product plans with you. More importantly, Sun's or XML Global's
product plans are quite irrelvant to the disussion we were having.

Bottom line is that you are unable to make a credible technical or business
case on your assertions that:

-CC is registry entry (metadata) and not repository item (content).
-CC assembly tools should be part of registry scope

I have asserted that both of above statements are false and have given sound
reasons.

As has been the historical pattern, when you have no ground to stand on you
resort to personal attacks on me and my company.

David RR Webber wrote:

> Message text written by Farrukh Najmi
> >
> David,
>
> Lets stay civilized and keep inflamatory invectives out of the
> conversation. I
> have worked very hard for this project and do not deserve this sort of
> treatment.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Farrukh,
>
> On the other hand, so have we all.  And more to the point - several of
> us out here are actually committed to early adopters to deliver a
> real solution - so when you say : -
>
> "Reposotory exists but is de-emphasied as an implementation detail. Yes
> according to my vision the CC is content that is put in the repository (via
> the registry interfaces defined by RS spec). Like any other content it has
> meta-data in form of RegistryEntry that may be queried to facilitate
> discovery
> of the CC."
>
> Guess what - your dismissive "implementation detail" - and "according to
> my vision" - is instead a missing vital piece in the system that
> becomes a customers software cannot work correctly without this
> being exactly engineered at the XML level.
>
> I was pleased when we got rid of the confusing and divisive repository
> notion - and replaced it with a single registry containing the metadata
> content.  That is clean simple and clear.  The registry contains the
> definitions and the instances of the metadata descriptions, and the
> ebXML runtime information such as CPP and BP definitions.
>
> The repository is the application business content (catalogues,
> customer records, billing, payments, etc) and sent and
> received ebXML transactions - whose semantic definitions are
> described by the registry metadata.
>
> Now we are being told the repository is back because Nagwa in
> QR in agreement with CC said so?  And we've moved half the content
> out of the registry into the repository?   Surely - the TA document is our
> reference point here.
>
> And that is the nub of all this - moving boxes around on UML diagrams
> is well and good - but without the XML implementation details being
> correctly engineered its not worth a light.  Agreeing on the XML
> implementation details is vital here.  Whenever we attempt to focus
> on that however - its dismissed as 'implementation detail'.
>
> Fine - bottom line is we will all be out there building our own
> 'implementation detail'.   Mine will work because I will ensure
> the XML is done correctly so that it will.   At this point its becomes
> abundantly clear that is the only practical path we have here.
>
> Build it - deliver it - and then come back to Registry in a few months
> and show everyone how we did that because they won't be able to
> replicate it from broken spec's.
>
> BTW - just who else apart from XML Global is actually planning on
> delivering a product to customers within the next 3 months here?
>
> From my understanding Sun Microsystems is not one of those
> actually implementing a Registry product - correct?
>
> Thanks, DW.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh Najmi
end:vcard