Re: SV: [ebxml-dev] New ebMS B2B appliance "s2sclient" available from NIH/OD

In UBL the terminology was changed between UBL 1.0, which called
it a 'GUID', and 'UUID' inUBL 2. In the UBL TC we decided for UBL's
purposes (very similar requirements to ebXML's) that GUID refered to
proprietary implementations of UUID whereas UUID could either refer to
standards, such as that in ISO/IEC 11578:1996, or more generally to
any ID which is 'universally unique' and 'universal' has different meaning
in different contexts. 'UUID' generally implies avoiding any possible lack of
uniqueness in a particular usage scenario. So a UUID means whatever
you * need * it to mean (standard or otherwise) but GUID is something
defined by certain applications such as certain databases. So the
matter is: Does ebXML need the ID to be agreed across implementations
or can it allow the uniqueness to depend on the use case? If it is intended
that all implemenations use the same standard of UUID then that would
have had to be stated in the ebXML spec and a normative reference given
to the UUID standard intended. But the more pragmatic approach seems
to have been taken which I'd paraphrase as "an ID like a UUID which might
be either
1) * any * 'GUID' which a particular prpprietary product might generate
or
2) the equivalent of such an ID such as might be defined by a standard
or by any apropriate equivalent means.
So ebXML's use of the term GUID implies anything similar to the various
types of 'GUID' which databases, platforms or the like can generate or
anthing like that which has the same sort of uniqueness as a UUID like
that defined in ISO/IEC 11578:1996 or similar standards. All these mean
it is likely to be unique in the maimum possible scope (so not just unique
to a particular collaboration). But there need not, it seems, be the case
that all parties in the collaboration(s) use the exact same method of
creating it since one could use a Microsoft platform generating its GUID
and another could use Oracle generating its own version of a 'GUID' and
both would be valid. Likewise David RRW's home-grown version of a GUID
should equally be valid *if * it provides roughly the equivalent level of
uniqueness. Anything more specific than that would have been, I suppose,
unworkable or too expensive * but * this pragmatism rules out certainty
about what any party can expect another party to use as a GUID. I guess,
as a result of this, it can't realistically be assumed that the GUID is going
to be reliably unique so not too much weight should be put on that. Also
it might be that a message sent a second time would have the same GUID
as the first sending of the message. Besides, could better than this be
realistically expected in a vendor-neutral protocol standard like ebXML?
Do the testbeds cover this to help interoperability?

All the best

Stephen Green

On 21/04/07, Farrukh S. Najmi <> wrote:
>
> I very much agree to the use of UUID as well. The ebXML Registry specs
> use UUIDs extensively for
> object identification.
>
> Torsten Kirschner wrote:
> > I very much agree, use UUIDs , cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID .
> >
> > Firstly, they satisfy the requirements in the specification by
> > definition.
> >
> > Secondly, they avoid semantically overloading the element. If one
> > needs to convey meta data, there are other elements in the header to
> > do that.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Fra:* Markus Gudmundsson [mailto:]
> > *Sendt:* 19. april 2007 13:25
> > *Til:* Vishal Sinha
> > *Kopi:* ; 
> > *Emne:* Re: [ebxml-dev] New ebMS B2B appliance "s2sclient" available
> > from NIH/OD
> >
> > The ebMS specification refers to RFC 2822 which basically says that
> > message identifiers should be unique. It also suggests appending the
> > domain name of the host generating the message identifier to it, as
> > well as using a date string.
> >
> > It is very common today to use GUIDs, but a GUID is a computer
> > generated number, which uses host information. GUIDs can be easily
> > created in most programming languages such as C# or Java and the host
> > name need not be appended to it. An example of such an identifier in
> > the common hexadecimal form is 05817520-6B71-4609-BD2B-DE97F61A4712.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >   Markus
> >
> > ----
> > Markus Gudmundsson
> > Unimaze Software
> >
> > Programming tools for UBL and electronic business - Check out
> > www.unimaze.com <http://www.unimaze.com>
> >
> >
> > On 4/19/07, *Vishal Sinha* <
> > <mailto:>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Hello All,
> >
> >     I have a question on message ID in ebXML.
> >
> >     The ebXML spec says that message ID is a globally unique identifer
> >     for ebXML messages.
> >     Does it means that between two trading partners it is unique or
> >     is it unique across all trading partners ?
> >
> >     For example if there are 3 trading partner 'A', 'B', 'C'
> >     Lets say, A and B are exchanging messages and Aand C are also
> >     exchanging messages then can A & B can use the same message ID as
> >     A & C.
> >
> >     If someone clarifies on it, it will good help.
> >
> >     regards,
> >     Vishal Sinha
> >
> >
> >     On 4/19/07, *David RR Webber (XML)* <
> >     <mailto:>> wrote:
> >
> >         The latest release of the S2Sclient provides enhanced
> >         performance and configuration / environment support.
> >
> >         The S2Sclient has windows desktop drag-and-drop messaging
> >         folder support and CPA configuration of partners including SSL
> >         and dsig setup and instructions.
> >
> >         For more details and download links see:
> >
> >         http://ebxmlforum.blogspot.com/2007/04/nihod-releases-upgraded-s2sclient-for.html
> >
> >         Enjoy, DW
> >
> >         "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Regards,
> >     Vishal Sinha.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
>
>
>