ebxml-regrep message


OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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
|
|



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC