RE: PartyId and Context

[Charlie Fineman <fineman@arzoon.com>]

Ok, that means we have to warn people of the potential landmine of
collisions in the name of the context/domain attribute. Alternatively
provide a registry feature for that namespace

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hinkelman [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 11:25 AM
> To: Charlie Fineman
> Cc: Burdett, David; Charlie Fineman; 'Duane Nickull';
> ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: PartyId and Context
> 
> 
> Charlie, I generally agree.....
> 
> - "URI" could be the "default", recommended, or such (depending on the
> physical schema, etc) for domain/context/whatever.
> 
> - I remain skeptical that people will stop concocting their 
> own ad-hoc name
> schemes. I believe industries/groups will continue to do this 
> for reasons
> of lingo ,etc, regardless of how logical it may be to have 
> consistency, so
> I favor allowing them to do it, and minimize ebXML buy-in.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Fineman <fineman@arzoon.com> on 12/15/2000 12:56:04 PM
> 
> To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Burdett, David"
>       <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> cc:   Charlie Fineman <fineman@arzoon.com>, "'Duane Nickull'"
>       <duane@xmlglobal.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,
>       ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  RE: PartyId and Context
> 
> 
> 
> hehe... ok... there are two issues here. My original message was about
> something different than what you guys are talking about (but 
> as luck would
> have it I have something to say about both! :-)
> 
> 1) Domain/Context
> 
> We certainly would not have to set up a registry for the 
> element values
> that
> the id could take on. However, we certainly would have to set 
> up some sort
> of registry for the ATTRIBUTE values that domain/context 
> could take on.
> This
> is a different thing than what IANA does though. We probably have this
> problem anyway (i.e. supporting an extensible universe of 
> attribute values
> for many of the ebXML DTDs).
> 
> If people start concocting their own ad-hoc naming schemes 
> then this cold
> become a problem but that sorta defeats the purpose of the 
> naming scheme in
> the first place :-) My guess is we could do an respectable job of
> identifying the existing naming schemes and not have to 
> evolve that list
> very much in the future.
> 
> Bottom line: I agree with Scott that this does not equate to ebXML
> becomming
> a registry for the names themselves but it would require that 
> ebXML be a
> "registry" (largely static) of the TYPES of names that can 
> appear in party
> ID's
> 
> 2) My original (not-so-obvious-it-turns-out) point
> 
> I was talking about the element tags themselves (FromParty vs.
> FromPartyId).
> If it makes sense, then the repository and the TRP group 
> should use the
> same
> name. That's all I was trying to say :-)
> 
>      Regards,
> 
>           Charlie Fineman
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Hinkelman [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 11:00 AM
> > To: Burdett, David
> > Cc: 'Charlie Fineman'; 'Duane Nickull'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
> > ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: PartyId and Context
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>