matt,
all good notions. that is why I strongly urge you to resolve this
completely within an appropriate sub-committee and bring a complete well
throughout and documented proposal to the regrep tc. there is no hurry to
rush to include half-baked ideas. let quality and completeness be your
guide now, not milestones.
joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:41 AM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi';
Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
Joel,
You have a strange way of lurking :-)
How about some sort of configuration attribute in the organization
definition which toggles this behavior? I like being able to give the
option on a installation to installation basis. For example, our
registry is used in one place where organizations are used to represent
departments or some internal partitioning scheme. In this case, I want
associations to be quick and easy. Its also used in a place where
multiple organizations maintain their own profile, much like a typical
UDDI installation. I would want strict association in that particular
case so that copyright and ownership of information doesn't become an
issue.
-Matt
On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:21 AM, Munter, Joel D wrote:
>
> Although I have no official standing in this TC, as an observer and
> previous
> participant, I voice strong objection to this proposal. The argument
> that
> it is "...too much of a burden to keep up with..." is weak. I would
> not
> want someone to stake a claim to having some association to my company
> and
> force me to do something about it to keep that invisible. I think that
> acceptance of this proposal negates and undermines the entire purpose
> of
> associations. I strongly suggest that you look at this much more
> thoroughly
> and offer a more complete proposal for resolution. Maybe there is a
> way to
> make it easier on the users. e.g., Send a note/message to the target
> partner key contact when an assertion is made and offers a time limit
> for
> the response with a default state of deny.
>
> Joel (still lurking) Munter
> Intel Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:40 AM
> To:
> Subject: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
>
>
> Team,
>
> Based on both user and implementation experience the feedback we have
> been receiving on Extramural associations is that it is too restrictive
> to require that an Extramural Association (an association between
> objects owned by two different parties) must be confirmed by both
> parties before it is visible to the general public. The problem is that
> it is too much of a burden for parties to keep up with the confirmation
> task. Another problem is that hiding unconfirmed associations is
> difficult to implement and quite inefficient.
>
> I would like to propose that we make the following changes in V3
> regarding Extramural Associations:
>
> -Extramural Associations that have not been confirmed must be visible
> to
> all and should not be invisible
>
> Note that anyone can still see the attributes isConfirmedBySourceOwner
> and isConfirmedByTargetOwner to determine the confirmation status and
> decide whether they trust this Association or not.
>
> The proposed change is quite simple to spec, will make the registry
> more
> user friendly and will also greatly simplify implementation. It can be
> done ijn a backward compatible way with no schema canges required.
>
> Please share your thoughts.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
