Subject: RE: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
Specialization in an OO sense. Suggesting the TP spec is the generalization.
I carefully used the word "could". The need for a specialized Registry CPP
is not concrete, but analysis would determine if a specialization is needed.
Hopefully not. Its time to dig deep into the TP spec to find out (I intend
to read it with a fine tooth comb).
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hinkelman [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:07 PM
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi'; ''ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org ' '; 'Farrukh Najmi
'
Subject: RE: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
back again too.
What do we mean anyway by "specialization"? What is so special?
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
"Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com> on 04/04/2001 03:04:39
PM
To: "'Farrukh Najmi'" <najmi@east.sun.com>,
"''ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org ' '" <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>
cc: "'Farrukh Najmi '" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>, Scott
Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: RE: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
I am back for a few minutes.
Why do we need a word for this? Why can't it be simply a Registry CPP, and
Registry CPA, which could be a specialization of the TP specifications (if
specialization is required that is to say).
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:najmi@east.sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:52 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