Team,
A few things about the extramural Associations proposal.
This proposal fills a hole in our specifications. If we do not do it then by default it means that anyone
can create associations with anyone else's objects and such associations would be visible to the whole
world.
The proposal makes some very focused and surgical enhancements to existing Association specification in
RIM 1.1. It should be noted that there are no new attributes added. The main change is in defining the
semantics when Associations is with RegistryObjects not owned by the creator of the Association. This is
essentially providing missing semantic rules rather than a substantial re-design.
One of the niceties of the proposal is that no new RS interface is added to provide a way for a party to
confirm an Extramural Association to an object owned by them. The proposal simply says confirmation is
done by the party submitting a cloned copy of the same Association using existing SubmitObjectRequest in
RS.
The only remaining change is the addition of a 4 convenience methods to Association class.
In summary this proposal is a very low hanging fruit for V2 and is essentially a bug fix for existing
functionality.
Please share any concerns you may have and I will attempt to address them. I look forward to your support
on this proposal.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> Is attached per action item from today. Thanks for your consideration
> given the short lead time.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: extramuralAssociationsProposal-Nov1-2001.pdf
> extramuralAssociationsProposal-Nov1-2001.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
> Encoding: BASE64
