Re: [regrep-comresolve] Re: [regrep-comment] ServiceBinding andSpecificationLink asLeafRegistryObject element?

Thanks for your comments Joel.

I will use "may" instead of "will" as you suggest. Thanks.

BTW since the cost of meeting this RFE is simply adding a parent attribute to
a few elements, I strongly urge teh team to do this for V3 as it is a low lying
fruit.
It is so small that it does not even merit being noted as a work item.

"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> What you suggest is fine; however, I offer the following constructve
> criticism.
>
> With respect to V3 efforts, as the work has not been fully scoped nor even
> drafted, it is difficult to predict what exactly will be in the V3 spec's.
> I would like you to consider changing the "will" to a "may" in "...In V3 we
> will include..."  Or you may wish some other form of softer language or
> phrasing.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:42 AM
> To: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'
> Subject: [regrep-comresolve] Re: [regrep-comment] ServiceBinding and
> SpecificationLink asLeafRegistryObject element?
>
> Team,
>
> Below is suggested reply to this comment:
>
> ---------------------
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your comments on the OASIS ebXML Registry V2 specifications.
>
> The long term direction of the specifications is that any leaf
> RegistryObject should be able to be submitted
> by itself even if it is a composed object within a parent object. In such
> cases the composed
> object must reference an existing parent object in the registry.
>
> The ability to submit/update a composed object without its parent object is
> a future feature. In V3
> we will include the optional ability to specify a parent attribute in all
> composed
> RegistryObject classes. This will allow a composed object to be submitted
> without the accompanying
> parent object.
>
> Until then, as you point out,  it is semantically meaningless to submit a
> composed object (e.g. ServiceBInding)
> without its parent (e.g. Service). V2 implementations should detect and
> report such cases as an Error condition.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> Paul Teasdale wrote:
>
> > Can I assume that the specs are in error when specifying ServiceBinding
> and SpecificationLink as being Leaf objects? Hence, they can only be
> submitted/updated as child elements of Service and ServiceBinding
> respectively?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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>

--
Regards,
Farrukh