Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client

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

Scott,

The CPP/CPA I am working on is a template as opposed to actual one. The
registry does not require any CPA negotiation for clients to interact with it.
The purpose of the CPP/CPA in teh spec would be to tell clients and registries
what is expeted of them (e.g. what BP processes they must implement etc.).
There is no requirement that a client or a service actually use a CPP or CPA.
Thus I feel this is implicit and not explicit by your own definitions.

Note that the registry of registries case is special since in that case it is
likely that each registry would register its own explicit CPP in the registry
of registries. However, a client is free to use an implicit CPP for a registry
by simply plugging in the registry URI in the implicit CPP.

Scott Hinkelman wrote:

> Terminology issue. The word 'Implicit CPA' came from original discussions
> we had in TRP, where some folks believe that there does not have to be an
> explicit CPA to use TRP byitself (I support this in theory also). What you
> are working on is an Explicit CPA template.
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
> Farrukh Najmi <najmi@east.sun.com> on 04/04/2001 07:30:47 AM
>
> To:   "Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>
> cc:   "'Farrukh Najmi '" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>,
>       "'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org '" <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
>
> By implicit I mean that there is no need for a negotiated CPA. Negotiated
> CPA
> between registry and client is a valid but more advanced need IMHO. It
> seems
> adeqauet for now to spec the template CPP/CPA in the registry specs and
> expect
> that individual clients will fill in the URL etc. for the registry and be
> able
> to do interactions with it as deined by RS spec and the BP specification
> schema
> that will be added to it by end of next week.
>
> This has been the operating assumption as recently as our meetings last
> week.
> Please discuss this now if there are different opinions on this.
>
> "Nieman, Scott" wrote:
>
> > Farrukh,
> >
> > Help me out on this one.
> >
> > If you are basing the CPP/CPA on the TP/BP work, would not this be an
> > "explicit" CPP/CPA, which is what I have been suggesting for a while?
> > Implicit suggests that the physical CPP does not exist, but is implied.
> >
> > im·plic·it (m-plst) adj. Implied or understood though not directly
> expressed
> >
> > I really believe the physical CPP must exist to understand the
> capabilities
> > of a registry.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Farrukh Najmi
> > To: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
> > Sent: 4/4/01 6:47 AM
> > Subject: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
> >
> > I wanted to remind the team that I am working on an action item from our
> > last meeting to re-introduce the implicit CPP/CPA for the registry and
> > registry client. These were removed from the spec when we got woefully
> > out of date with the TP teams specs. My action item is to bring them
> > up-to-date with current TP and BP specs.
> >
> > So yes the registry will have an implicit template CPP in the spec
> > defined in terms of the TP and BP specs as will the registry client. The
> > two CPPs will be used in much the same way as 2 parties that wish to
> > conduct eBuisness together. This has always been the intent of our
> > specs.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> >  <<Card for Farrukh Najmi>>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh

--
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