OASIS ebXML Registry TC meeting minutes, December 15, 2005

assistantashamedΔιαχείριση Δεδομένων

29 Νοε 2012 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

222 εμφανίσεις

OASIS ebXML Registry TC meeting minutes, December 15, 2005

Draft Agenda:

1. Approval of previous meeting minutes


2. Minute taker

Farrukh Najmi

2.1: Discussion on Letter from IHE (added to original agenda)

Reference: <http://lists.oasis

IHE letter describes 3 Issues. The following discussion transpired
on each of 3 issues:

* Bindings to ebMS

o Nikola: Requirement makes sense.

o Nikola: Can be done outside core specs as a

separate spec.
Farrukh agreed

+ Farrukh: Suggested name: "ebXML Messaging Binding for
ebXML Registry" (Not discussed in meeting)

o ebMS version 3 should be the target of new binding

o ebMS 3.0 is a Committee Approved Dr
aft but not yet a OASIS
Approved standard

o Farrukh: Can we develope a binding unless ebMS 3.0 is a
OASIS Approved standard?

o Kathryn: SOAP 1.1 with Attachments is a current dependency
that is not approved

o Farrukh: Propose
that we only make normative references in
our specs to approved specs. Only make rare exceptions
for very compelling reasons.

o Work could start now but will likely not finish for next 4
6 months so timing may allow ebMS 3.0 to become a

o Farrukh: Problem is who will do the work. Experience
suggests that the best way to make thing happen is to
have the very people who feel it most important do the
work. Suggested IHE lead the binding spec work.

o Kathryn: Concerned tha
t they may not have enough registry

o Nikola: They are seasoned registry users and we will help
them as needed

o Farrukh: Agreed

o Agreement:

+ Propose to IHE that we create a new sub
team to
define t
he "ebXML Messaging Binding for ebXML Registry"

+ Led by IHE (Bill Majurski maybe?)

+ With active particpation from ebMS TC members

+ Close consulation from regrep TC members. Farrukh
offers to be active


+ IHE produce first few drafts with help from regrep
TC and also ebMS TC.

+ regrep TC and ebMS TC review and approve the final
version of the spec

* Binding with MTOM

o Farrukh: Is a W3C Reccomen
dation already!

o Farrukh: Probably requires WSDL 2.0. Does anyone know?

o Farrukh: Will require convert our existing WSDL 1.0
description to MTOM compatible WSDL 2.0 description

o Farrukh: What tools will support MTOM and by

+ JAXRPC 2.0 will support MTOM early next year

o Nikola: Does ebMS 3.0 support MTOM?

o Farrukh: New bindings are separate normative spec specs not

o Farrukh: What about WS
I profile for MTOM? Doe
s anyone

o Farrukh: Existing core specs would not change

o Ivan: Expressed concern about too many specs being

o Farrukh: A new protcols binding would be a new regrep spec.
New protocol bindings are rare.

o Nikola: Keeping protocol bindings out of core specs a very
good thing

o Farrukh: Should consider factoring out existing bindings in
ebRS 3.0 into sepaarte binding specs for SOAP and HTTP
in next version of core specs.

o Nikola: ag

o Agreement:

+ Take same approach as ebMS binding and ask IHE to
lead the spec and we will provide them all the help they

* Stored Query Issue

o Query Issue 1: What is the scope of the predicate that is

+ Farrukh (not discussed in meeting): The language
could certainly be clearer. The intent is for registry
to filter the smallest scope predicate that contains
parameters that were not supplied by the client during
invocation of the s
tored query. It is a good idea when
designing queries to exlicitly use '(' and ')' around
predicates that couuld be pruned. For example let use
fragment from IHE query:

Original Predicate (follows suggested guideline):

AND (dateTime.parent = ss.id AN

dateTime.name = $dateTimeAtt AND

dateTime.value >= $dateTimeFrom AND

dateTime.value &lt; $dateTimeTo )

Modified Predicate (Does not follow suggested Guideline):

AND dateTime.parent = ss.id AND

dateTime.name = $dateTimeAtt AND

dateTime.value >= $dateTimeFrom AND

dateTime.value &lt; $dateTimeTo

The difference is the use of '(' and ')' to explicitly mark predicate
boundaries for pruning. This needs to be clarified in

o Query Issue 2: Pruning of un
nced query variables
from the FROM clause.

+ At first I thought this is an impl issue that the
spec should not touch. Reason is that a good database
should recognize FROM clause columns that are not used
in the query and do that pruning its
elf. However, if dbs
as good as PostgreSQL canmake this mistake then maybe
the spec should require that registry server implement
this. I now support adding this reqirement to future
version of the spec.

o Nikola: Use of pre
defined queries only
a very good.

o Farrukh: Agreed

+ Impls could set a configuration to snot allow
anything but stored queries

>3. Review of comments on "Registering Web Services in an ebXML




o WS Profile status update:

+ Farrukh is very behind on plans

+ Asked for help for someone to go thru all issues and
to compile a subset of major iss

+ Kathryn volunteered. Thanks Kathryn!

o Unrelated Discussion: Missing figures in 3.0 specs

+ Farrukh: Can we add a zip file with a README file and
the missing images

+ Kathryn will talk to OASI
S to find the right steps to
fix misisng figure in specs.

>4. Generic Template report (Farrukh, Nikola, Ivan)

* Ivan, Nikola and Farrukh working on profile template

o Ivan: Removing section describing ebRIM so it is not
duplicated in every


o Nikola: Template should be organized by use case in order
of the profile implementor and user

o Nikola: Need a way to organize profiles and their data

o Farrukh: could do so using stylized use of Registry

+ Profiles

# Web Services

* WSDL (Currently called ebXML Profile for
Web Services)


# Verticals

* Healthcar



# ebXML

* ebCPP

* ebCC

* ebBP

* ebMS?


IPR transition discussion. Please see:

>A. http://www.oasis

>B.. http://www.oasis

Farrukh provided a summary of the IPR Modes to simplify the legalese.
Farrukh credits Edua
rdo Gutentag for explaining to him
the legalese in plain English:

* Top level choices are Royalty Free (RF) and Reasonable And Non
Discriminatory (RAND)

* RF guarentees these implementors can use the specs without ever
paying anyone royalties


o allows for royalties to be charged

o Everything is open to negotiations, including royalties

* RF has two sub

o RF on Limited Terms

+ Similar to W3C Patent Policy

+ Licensor

(if any) cannot impose negotiations or
special terms on the licensee

o RF on RAND Terms

+ Similar to RAND but without any royalty

+ Licensor (if any) can impose negotiations or special
terms on the licensee

kh: The option that allows our hard work of many years to be most
broadly adopted is RF on Limited Terms. That will be my

>6. Submissions for OASIS Symposium

* Deadline is Dec 20th (1 week from tomorrow)

* Ash Parikh of Raining Data is fil
ing a registry specific

* Ivan may submit a case study for UN/CEFACT. Cannot present
himself but someone else could.

>7. Other issues, items

>8. Next meeting

January 12th. Following bi
weekly schedule.

Happy holidays to all our dear collea
gues in the ebXML Registry TC.