Subject: RE: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
Hi all, Would the word "default" or a synonym thereof be of any use here ? cheers |-----Original Message----- |From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:najmi@east.sun.com] |Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:52 AM |To: Nieman, Scott |Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi '; 'Scott Hinkelman '; ''ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org |' ' |Subject: Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client | | |I am OK with dropping the word implicit to avoid confusion. Should |we replace |the word "Implicit" with the word "Template" (as in template CPP |or template |CPA). | |I am assuming we are OK with the basic approach of the spec which |is to define a |template CPP for registry and for client and a template CPA |between the registry |and registry client. | |Let us know if anyone disagree with above assumptions. | |"Nieman, Scott" wrote: | |> You know my vote on this. We can specify CPP/CPA, potential |extensions, and |> reference TP specs without using the words implicit or explicit. |> |> The more we introduce words that are need to be "explained" |since we alter |> their meaning, the more our specs look confusing. I am sure |that QRT would |> be supportive of dropped unneeded terminology. |> |> Scott |> |> -----Original Message----- |> From: Farrukh Najmi |> To: Scott Hinkelman |> Cc: Farrukh Najmi; Nieman, Scott; 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org ' |> Sent: 4/4/01 7:55 AM |> Subject: Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client |> |> Scott, |> |> As state in my earlier email |> |> > This has been the operating assumption as recently as our meetings |> last |> > week. |> > Please discuss this now if there are different opinions on this. |> |> Operating assumptions have been known to be wrong. We very much need to |> get any |> issues on this resolved. The choice needs to be ours as a team. So your |> thoughts on the subject would be quite helpful. |> |> Scott Hinkelman wrote: |> |> > Farrukh, |> > I merely provided the roots of this terminology. I will not debate |> your |> > choice of what to do with it. |> > |> > 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 07:46:04 AM |> > |> > To: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS |> > cc: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>, "Nieman, Scott" |> > <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>, |> "'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org |> > '" <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org> |> > Subject: Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client |> > |> > 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 |> |> -- |> Regards, |> Farrukh |> |> <<Card for Farrukh Najmi>> | |-- |Regards, |Farrukh | |
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC