RE: PartyId and Context

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

Scott

I think this is what I'm proposing.

If you want to be sure that your id is unique then you must use a URI.
Otherwise you need to know that anyone who sees the message will not find
the id ambiguous.

David

-----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>
> >
>
>