Re: PartyId and Context

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

>Why can't this aspect be part of the CPA?.

Yes, I believe the CPP/CPA should generally take the same approach.

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



Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com> on 12/15/2000 01:12:11 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: PartyId and Context





Scott Hinkelman wrote:

> So this hasn't died yet. I love URIs. They are beautiful. But I'm not yet
> convinced to mandate everyone to
> use it. Domain/Context, whatever, allows using URIs or some other list
(maybe
> private) of identifiers to indicate what
> the value is, one of which could be "URI". This approach might even help
> ebXML work within
> an enterprise, where IANA registration makes no sense. I like the level
of
> indirection. Go ask an airline,
> all they speak is IATA and just because that can be IANA registered, they
> will still speak IATA.
>
> Also, using domain/context DOES NOT mean ebXML MUST set up and maintain
some
> registration
> authority. Precisely the opposite in fact, and allows ebXML not mandate
any
> of it.

<PY> I agree with this. I never understood why it is necessary for ebXML to
maintain its own registry of all the possible values for the domain that
could
be specified in the context? Why can't this aspect be part of the CPA?.
I.e.
the valid domains and the corresponding valid ids that go with domains (for
the
parties) and the location of the (on line) registry for the subject domains
if
any, could be part of the CPA right?  </PY>

Regards, Prasad

> 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
>
> "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 12/15/2000 12:33:23
AM
>
> To:   "'Charlie Fineman'" <fineman@arzoon.com>, "'Duane Nickull'"
>       <duane@xmlglobal.com>
> cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  RE: PartyId and Context
>
> To answer Charlie's and Duane's emails at one go.
>
> There is a VERY GOOD REASON why we should NOT use domain and that is that
> we would need to set up and create our own registration authority when we
can
>
> leverage IANA if we use URIs.
>
> Please read my original post on this point at ...
>
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200009/msg00246.html
>
> ... and let me know if you think I am wrong to require the use of URIs
> unless the codes are mutually agreed between the parties.
>
> It's just that if we want to set up our own registration authority then
we
> are talking about a lot of expense and effort that, IMO, is just not
> necessary when you can use a URN as the umbrella for other domains such
as
> DUNS.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Fineman [mailto:fineman@arzoon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:33 AM
> To: 'Duane Nickull'; Burdett, David
> Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: PartyId and Context
>
> Is there a good reason why the tags shouldn't just have the same name (in
> TRP and Rep)? Obviously they don't mean the same exact thing but are they
> close enough in intent to share the same name?
>
> Duane wrote:
> > This is similar to the RegRep information model ( not syntactically).
> >
> > eg.
> >
> > <fromPartyID domain="duns">12774493</fromPartyID>
> >
> > <toPartyID domain="CanadianTaxID">GAED440392</toPartyID>
> >