RE: PartyId and Context

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Charlie

I think you were missing my point. The benefit of using IANA, is that
registries can register with IANA and then create their own ids within them.


For example, the last time round Henry Lowe wored out that CORBA which has
unique Ids for IORs, could set up a namespace along the lines of (I've not
checked the detail).

urn:corba.org:ior:18271892

Once corba has registered their naming scheme with IANA they are completely
free to register their own ids e.g. 18271892 without reference to anyone
else.

Similarly Dun & Bradstreet could set up a urn along the lines of:

urn:dnb.com:duns:123456789

Again once Dun & Bradstreet had registered with IANA they could then
allocate new DUNS numbers without reference to anyone else.

Charlie also said ...
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.

I agree we could probably do a "respectable job", but if we havt to evolve
the list at all in the future, we MUST specify the process for how that is
done.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Fineman [mailto:fineman@arzoon.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:56 AM
To: 'Scott Hinkelman'; Burdett, David
Cc: Charlie Fineman; 'Duane Nickull'; 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>
> >
> 
>