Harald,
if this is the opinion of the majority, I do not object.
I would only prefer to avoid that the TA document contains description of
UIDs so many times.
/stefano
� -----Original Message-----
� From: Harald Hauschildt [mailto:[email protected]]
� Sent: 29 January 2001 15:21
� To: 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Petit, John; [email protected]
� Subject: RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0
�
�
�
� Hi Stefano, hi John, hi List!
� I like to express my point of view to the UID-discussion below...I
� did that earlier during the review cycle...
�
� The whole ebxml idea becomes much more clear at least to the
� (converter-)developers if
� the term UID/GUID would be explicit used within the TA doc.
� To distinguish the concept of ebxml from other concepts (e.g.
� BizTalk), to proof that
� ebxml is not just another standard und to show to the world that we
� have learned from
� the past 20 years of EDI(fact) the term of UID/GUID should be
� descripted within the
� TA doc.
� I agree with Johns comment that "UIDs are going to play a critical
� role in cross schema
� interoperability and semantics" and that the TA doc should covers
� this topic as a bridge between
� the different groups docs.
� I agree also with John that "others would like to see [UID's covered
� by the TA doc] as well as evidenced by the recent flurry of emails
� over the use of UIDs"..........at least me.
�
� Best wishes,
�
� Harald
�
� //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
� /////////////////////
� Dr. Harald Hauschildt email: [email protected]
� MOSAIC SOFTWARE AG Tel: +49-(0)2225-882-425
� Feldstr. 8 Fax: +49-(0)2225-882-201
� D-53340 Meckenheim
� //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
� /////////////////////
�
�
�
� -----Original Message-----
� From: Stefano POGLIANI [SMTP:[email protected]]
� Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:16 PM
� To: Petit, John; [email protected]
� Subject: RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0
�
� John,
�
� two words on your comment on my comments:
�
� "...I disagree with Stefano Pogliani's comment to downplay UID
� references in
� the TA doc. The use of UIDs goes across several ebXML groups (CC,
� Registry,
� BP, etc) and UIDs are going to play a critical role in cross schema
� interoperability and semantics. As the TA doc should illustrate
� concepts
� that bridge several ebXML groups, UIDs should certainly be covered in
� the TA
� doc. In fact, I would like to see a bit more of an explanation of the
� UID
� mechanism for semantic translation of XML documents. Clearly this is
� something others would like to see as well as evidenced by the recent
� flurry
� of emails over the use of UIDs."
�
� My comments raise from the following:
� 1.. If CC, BP and CPA would require explicitely to use the UIDs,
� then this
� may be an "architectural" thing.
� In this case I would "move" the explanation of them outside of the
� RegRep
� since, as you note, it is a technology that spans different domains.
� At this
� point, I would make a paragraph somewhere saying that, whenever a
� Unique ID
� is required, then the GUID (or any other mechanism) will be used
� consistently and this same mechanism will be enforced by the RegRep.
� 2.. If other teams do not need to explicitely reference UIDs, then
� it will
� be something inside the RegRep and it will be a technical
� implementation.
� I am not saying to remove any and all of the occurrences of
� UID-related
� sentences. I am trying to say that this would need to be a fair small
� section that does not need to be repeated in too many places.
�
� /Stefano
� -----Original Message-----
� From: Petit, John [mailto:[email protected]]
� Sent: 29 January 2001 01:23
� To: '[email protected]'
� Subject: Comments on TA doc V1.0
�
�
� Here are my comments in Word format.
�
� Cheers, John Petit
� KPMG Consulting
� XMLfs Team
� Office: 970 728 9468
� Mobile: 312 961 8956
�
�
� << File: ATT00001.htm >>
�
�
