Katrhryn,
I have a one time conflict today due to which I will not be able to
attend. Please see brief reports below...
Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
>This is a reminder and the agenda for our telecon Thursday, June 24th,
>from 1:30-3:30.
>
>Call in information is below.
>
>USA domestic toll free number: 1-866-235-8350
>International number: 206-655-2988
>Pass code: 669014#
>Here is the phone number for the operator if you have any problems:
>206-655-2254.
>
>Agenda:
> 1. Minute taker
>
> 2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
>
>
No issues
> 3. eGov report
>
>
-An initial direct mapping from the eGMS vocabulary has been proposed to
ebRIM.
-Sample SubmitObjectsRequest illustrating the mapping has been provided
-The registry will be deployed in UK Office of e-Envoy in the next 2 weeks
-Next steps will be to load eGMS content and metadata into registry
using proposed direct binding from eGMS to ebRIM
-Most of the content will be XML Schemas initialy
-Registry will be based upon freebXML Registry 3.0-alpha2 that was
recently announce
> 4. WSRP report
>
>
No new version of doc has been posted. Nothing new to report.
>
> 5. SCM subcommittee report
>
>
-Cancelled last weeks meeting due to lack of prep time.
-Next steps are to finalize the Use Case document and send it for TC
review and then public review
> 6. cc Review subcommittee report
>
> 7. Specs status
>
>
-Making steady progress. Will speed up now that freebXML Registry
3.0-alpha2 is out
-Hope to have version 2.6 available for TC review by end of month.
> 8. Proposal for more flexible object ref
> <<Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef>>
>
>
Wish to retract this proposal based upon Nikola's suggested alternative
way using Event Notification
> 9. IHE ITI supplement
> <<Re: [regrep] FW: [Fwd: IHE ITI Technical Framework Supplement
>published for Public>>
> 10. Update on Publishing Web Services
> <<Re: [regrep] [Paper on Federated Registries] Re: [Fwd: Semantic Web
>Services Architecture Committee Requirements Document]>>
> 11. Survey discussion
>
> 12. Other issues/items
>
> 13. Next meeting
>
>Please let me know if there are additional items for the agenda.
>
>
>
>Kathryn Breininger
>CENTRAL Project Manager
>Emerging Technologies
>Boeing Library Services
>
>425-965-0182 phone
>425-237-3491 fax
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef
> From:
> "Farrukh Najmi" <>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:46:14 -0700
> To:
> "Monica J. Martin" <>
>
>
>Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>
>
>>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nikola Stojanovic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><Farrukh>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My proposal is to add a new logical id attribute to the set of
>>>>>registry versioning attributes, and otherwise improving ObjectRef to
>>>>>allow selection of a particular version of an object.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>+1 on being able to reference a logical object in a version independent
>>>>manner.
>>>>
>>>>This is exactly what the lid attribute is for in the versioning spec
>>>>being added to version 2.6.
>>>>
>>>>I think that the use case you raise can (and should) be addressed very
>>>>easily by extending the ObjectRef class to have a choice of:
>>>>
>>>>a) a static "hard-wired" reference to a specific version of a specific
>>>>object (current capability)
>>>>
>>>>b) a dynamic "late-binding" reference to a logical object which is
>>>>determined at run-time (de-refence time).
>>>>I could see this being done via a second attribute named "dynamic".
>>>>When
>>>>dynamic is false (default) the registry
>>>>assumes that the id attribute references the referenced object. When
>>>>dynamic is true, the registry assumes that the id attribute MUST be
>>>>to a
>>>>stored query that dynamically determines the referenced objects.
>>>>
>>>>This is a very powerful concept. Thanks Matt for seeding this idea. I
>>>>hope we can discuss this over email prior to next telecon. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>></Farrukh>
>>>>
>>>>I also see this as a very valid and a needed Use Case and that
>>>>LateBinding approach is interesting. However, I think that we have a
>>>>solution that doesn't need LateBinding. It would be something like
>>>>this:
>>>>
>>>>- subscribe to relevant event(s); in this case it is Update of the
>>>>objects that are members of the package.
>>>>
>>>>- implement "Web Service" that is going to be triggered by the above
>>>>event and that is going to adjust relevant object references.
>>>>
>>>>As one looks at the context of the two, LateBinding would incur
>>>>lookups whenever object references need to be resolved and
>>>>EventNotification will be invoked when relevant events happen. One
>>>>would assume that occurrence frequency of the first is higher then
>>>>of the second.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Interesting point that Matt's use case is already addressable via the
>>>Event Notification feature. So as I understand your suggestion the
>>>reference that needs to always be to the latest version of an object
>>>could be updated from one version of an object to another by a web
>>>service that is an Event Notification Listener service that gets
>>>invoked whenever a new version of the object is created.
>>>
>>>I agree with the point that your alternative is more efficient than
>>>late binding Object Reference approach and requires no additional work.
>>>
>>>I now reconsider the idea of doing late binding of object references
>>>now. Instead we should keep it in our future candidate work items and
>>>rely on your Event Notification based approach to address Matt's use
>>>case for now.
>>>
>>>Any one disagree with this proposed resolution?
>>>
>>>
>>mm1: I don't disagree but wish to ask a question that applies to not
>>only late binding but the event notification approach where object
>>references are updated. In ebBP, we found that LateBinding is not a
>>black-white situation. For example, when we started to talk about
>>conditional attributes such as time to perform, we determined that
>>LateBinding could have a duration, may or may not be allowed, and
>>constraints could be applied (when changed, if changed where does the
>>value come from, etc). This raises questions:
>>
>> * Can you update the object references to the latest version?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. For the latest object at the time of update.
>
>
>
>> * Are there conditions that apply? Are all objects in the package
>> updated?
>>
>>
>
>Lets focus on the simpler case of Object A wishing to reference latest
>version of Object B.
>
>The answer is that:
>
>-If late binding is used then the object A updated when the object B is
>updated since the late binding ObjectRef stays unchanged.
>
>-If event notification is used to update the reference in Object A then
>Object A will be updated (and likely new version created) when Object B
>is updated.
>
>This is a significant difference between the two solutions.
>
>
>
>> * Does the owner define the duration, parameters or constraints of
>> when they can be changed?
>>
>>
>
>Object B can change any time its owner (or delegate) updates it. Object
>A's owner (or delegate) controls the criterea for the dynamic reference
>but has no control over when Object B is updated.
>
>
>
>>As well, in our work on time to perform, we found the conditional
>>aspects to be best expressed as an element not an attribute.
>>
>>
>
>In the late binding approach the conditional aspects are expressed in a
>stored query so an attribute with the query's id is sufficient.
>
>Thanks for the though provoking questions.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [regrep] FW: [Fwd: IHE ITI Technical Framework Supplement
> published for Public
> From:
> "Farrukh Najmi" <>
> Date:
> Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:30:54 -0700
> To:
> "Breininger, Kathryn R" <>
>
>
>Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
>
>
>
>>I am forwarding this request for review and comments on four supplements
>>to the IHE ITI Technical Framework, rev. 1.0. Comments are due by July
>>15th. We can discuss this at our next telecon as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>FYI...
>
>The following is the link to the IHE specification which references the
>ebXML Registry specs:
>
>http://www.himss.org/content/files/IHE_ITI_Cross-enterprise_Doc_Sharing_PC_2004-06-15.pdf
>
>This is great news for the adoption of our work. Congratulations to all.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [regrep] [Paper on Federated Registries] Re: [Fwd: Semantic Web
> Services Architecture Committee Requirements Document]
> From:
> "Farrukh Najmi" <>
> Date:
> Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:44:56 -0700
> To:
> <>
>
>
>Thanks for sharing Joe.
>
>This reminds me of the need for doing an update on the Publishing Web
>Services TN to add details on how to publish QoS attributes for Web
>Services and how to use those QoS attributes for Service discovery. Our
>existing specs handle this use case already but the details need to be
>spelled out.
>
>I propose we add this to our next TC meeting's agenda. Thanks.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
