Joel,
Your strong objection is noted. With my XMLG hat on (XMLG being a
vendor of an ebXML Registry implementation), I don't share the strong
objection with you because I feel some flexibility on this issue adds a
degree of value to a large cross-section of deployments I've seen to
date.
-Matt
On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Munter, Joel D wrote:
>
> As I have many times before with this TC, I have stated strong
> objections to
> a proposal and offered pretty good reasons for doing so. imho, for the
> reasons previously stated, "yet to be approved" associations should
> never be
> visible. I will not be swayed by email exchanges and look forward to
> reviewing a well thought out and reasoned approach to real and
> perceived
> problems.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
>
>
> Joel,
>
> One thing to consider is that Farrukh's proposal suggests that
> yet-to-be-approved associations be visible, but there is still a means
> to determine whether both organizations have accepted the association.
>
> The specification could merely specify that associations that are not
> yet approved must be represented as such in any user interface. I'm
> not sure if this suggestion is kludgy or not, but I think it would be
> sufficient.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:55 AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Munter, Joel D wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Just to clarify...
>>
>> Under the proposed change all Associations will always be visible to
>> everyone (barring a custom Access Control Policy). Any viewer will be
>> able to access for themselves whether t he Association is confirmed
>> and by which parties. Specifically, there will be no ability under the
>> proposal for Party A to "do something" that would "keep that
>> (Association) invisible".
>>
>> The proposal essentially says: "Label the product and let the buyer be
>> aware". To use an analogy the V2 way would mean that cigarrete stores
>> would have to hide cigarretes from the eyes pregnant women and teh
>> proposed change would mean that they can display it in full sight of
>> teh pregnant women as long as there is a label that says that pregnant
>> women are at risk for using that product.
>>
>> Hope the anology makes things clearer.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
