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: Meeting notes 05/08/2001


Thanks for taking and distributing detailed minutes.  It is much

wrt to the comment "...(onResponse in case of success or partial success,
onError in case of failure," what is a partial success?

Can the interim (ie, editors version) of the documents be made available to
us home bound folks?  Phoenix is 105 degrees today, the thought of being in
Vienna looks much more attractive.

Now that XML Schema is "Recommended," why are you going "back" to DTDs?  TRP
(MS) is not the only project team within ebXML using Schemas is it?  I think
that you should not take the time to develop an appendix A1 in DTD format.
I do agree that having erro definitions in XML Schema and Registry Message
Definitions in DTD format is inconsistent.

When will the Registry of Registries discussion take place?  Am I correct,
no draft material was ever distributed publically on this list?

Is it just me or does Figure 1 (ebRS) on Page 12 look fuzzy to everyone?
The idea behind the graphic is great, demonstrate the flexibility of the
architecture.  I recommend that we cleanup the picture and consider adding
the third topology example, "server side" components talking to the

Joel Munter

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Dalman [mailto:joe.dalman@tiecommerce.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:55 AM
To: 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: RE: Meeting notes 05/08/2001

Meeting Notes for 05/08/2001

Joe Dalman- TIE Commerce			Sally Fuger- AIAG
Byoung-Youl Song-ETRI			Kunio Mizoglichi- ECOM
Nikola Stojanovic- Encoda			Jong L. Kim- InnoDigital
Len Gallagher- NIST				John Pietit- KPMG
Sejin Nam- K4M				Kathryn Breininger- Boeing
Lisa Carnahan- NIST				Kyu-Chul Lee- CNU
Yutaka Yoshida- Sun				Deuk Jin Jung- KIEC
Farrukh Najmi(Phone)- Sun			Vadim Draluk- BEA

Meeting started at 9:00 am
Started by recapping work done on Monday.

The group first looked at a comment from QRT about the getExpirationDate
attribute in the RIM.  There was some question if the attribute can be
stable once the expiration date has expired.  The change suggested was to
change the word from MUST on line 445 to may, which the group agreed.

9:30 am
After spending a few minutes on the RIM the group starting reviewing the
changes Farrukh had made to the registry service document during the
evening.  The group appreciates the hard work Farrukh did during the evening
hours to help move the registry service document forward.  

Farrukh made the following changes:
-Now the client only implements RegistryClient with 2 simple methods
2)onError. These methods get responses and errors asynchronously delivered
by service.

-On the service side all methods return a response object. The
RegistryResponse (and its sub-classes) is capable of indicating success or
failure in status attribute. It may also contain an ebXMLError in case there
is a failure. In case of async response the return value from service
methods should be null and the response should be delivered async to the
RegistryClient interface (onResponse in case of success or partial success,
onError in case of failure.

-Almost all the pictures had to be redone. A new picture was added for
response class hierarchy

In reviewing the changes the group changed some of the wording around
section 6.4.1 to clearly explain what the synchronous response would be.
Added was an example of an asynchronous response.  

10:00 am to 10:30 am Break

10:30 am
Conversation continued on section 6.4.1 with additional changes to put the
words in bullet form discussing asynchronous and synchronous

Next we looked at the changes in Section 6.4.3 and decided the second
paragraph was not needed.

In Section 6.4.4   a couple of words were changed
In Section 6.5.1  the second paragraph had a change made to add
In Section 7.5 changed some of the words added by Farrukh
In Section 7.6 same changes made in 7.5 where made here 
In Section 7.8.2, Section 8.1.1, Section 8.1.2, Section 8.1.3 all had same
changes as 7.5
Identified that in figure 17 we can't use X because Xquery is now a W3C word
so that word will have to be changed.
Group noticed some issues about the Submitting organization and Responsible
Organization and was going to think about any changes that maybe needed in
the Registry Service specification.

12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm
Continued to review Registry service document adding figure numbers to some
of the figures towards the end of the document

Identified that in section 8.5.2 the current illustration isn't the most
current TRP specification so we added to it to match the TRP specification

In looking at Appendix A1 it was pulled from the TRP specification, which
uses schema instead of a DTD.  It was decided to pull this off as a side
item with Vadim, Nikola to look at change the appendix to a DTD

One change was made to the DTD where state was made implied vs. required

The group decided to split in two after coffee break with one group working
on the DTD for ebxmlerror and the other group working on CPA words for the
registry service document.

3:00 pm to 3:30 pm Break

3:30 pm
The group had a conference call with Farrukh where we had a discussion about
the types of returns the registry services should provide.  After a long
conversation the group was in agreement on what the registry service should
return.  Farrukh was also going to send the updated figures when any new
changes.  We continued to review the document with some of the changes made
Monday and had agreement on the changes we made.

To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC