RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Agree 100% with Scott on this.

Henry
------------------------------------
At 12:44 PM 09/22/2000 -0500, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM wrote:
>DW,
>That line was written by David B. not me.
>Anyway,
>>Notice what Scott was advocating - use the URI and no TYPE
>>as the default - means you don;t even need the registry - but
>>if you deviate from the path - then you need to tell your
>>TP's and then it would not be unreasonable to insist this is
>>done electronically via the registry.
>
>I am not convinced on "to insist this is done electronically via a
>registry".
>That was not what I was advocating. By hangup is basically not to insist it
>must
>be a URI, and allow the application to alternately decide both the value
>and the qualifier.
>I'm more interested in getting agreement on this, before discussing the
>registry point.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott Hinkelman
>Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
>Emerging Technologies, SWG
>512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
>srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
>
>
>David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 09/22/2000
>10:50:49 AM
>
>To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>cc:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, ebxml transport
>      <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>, "'Henry Lowe'" <hlowe@omg.org>
>Subject:  RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]
>
>
>
>Message text written by Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM
>>
>I think this is simple and supports flexibility, I don't think we need to
>impose some type of registry.
>
><<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Dave,  you really are looking for things to argue about, huh?!!!?
>
>Did we not go all around this several weeks ago?
>
>I'm hearing overtones of that - and the outcome was that
>people think of this 'registry' as some behemoth - where in
>reality it could be as simple as a XML file in a sub-directory
>off a web server somewhere.  So let's not revisit on that!
>
>The current WebDav DASL work I've been doing certainly
>allows for that minimalist approach, and RegRep as a whole
>is aware of the issues here.
>
>Notice what Scott was advocating - use the URI and no TYPE
>as the default - means you don;t even need the registry - but
>if you deviate from the path - then you need to tell your
>TP's and then it would not be unreasonable to insist this is
>done electronically via the registry.
>
>Thanks, DW.
>
>