Issue 7386: Metadata_document and Timestamp definitions missing (lsr-identifiers-ftf) Source: Japan Biological Informatics Consortium (Mr. Martin Senger, martin.senger@gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In PIM, there should be definitions (probably String) for the Metadata_document and Timestamp. Resolution: see below Revised Text: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-<version>.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-<version>.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 3) Section 9, page 11, paragraph starting with "The expiration_date specifies..." - add after text "Date and Time Formats" [8]" the following text: “(unless the platform specific model defines otherwise)” Actions taken: May 28, 2004: received issue December 3, 2004: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 7386 Metadata_document and Timestamp definitions missing In PIM, there should be definitions (probably String) for the Issue 7386: Metadata_document and Timestamp definitions missing (lsr-identifiers-ftf) Summary: In PIM, there should be definitions (probably String) for the Metadata_document and Timestamp. Suggested Resolution: We are not sure exactly how these are supposed to be defined. But we know the purpose of leaving the Metadata_document somewhat loose is that the specification leaves Metadata extensible. So perhaps, if anything, it should be bytes rather than more than a String as the issue suggests. Timestamp is probably fine as a String. Comments please from more knowlegable folk! To: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: Issue 7386 - please replace text from last summary email with this. X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:53:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF339 | June 21, 2004) at 07/15/2004 14:53:25, Serialize complete at 07/15/2004 14:53:25 My last note had the incorrect text for issue 7386 (which is resolved- thanks Martin!) . Apologies, Sean Please replace it with the following: Issue 7386: Metadata_document and Timestamp definitions missing (lsr-identifiers-ftf) Summary: In PIM, there should be definitions (probably String) for the Metadata_document and Timestamp. Suggested Resolution: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. To: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Cc: Michael Niemi , Michael_Miller@rosettabio.com, Martin Senger Subject: issue #7386 Sensitivity: X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:19:19 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 09:32:43, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 09:32:43 Here follows the current text for #7386. Michael and Martin, please let me know if you are happy/unhappy with it (and if not where/what changes you would like). I have lost track :-) I will be checking with Jordi in an hour or two to get his input again but I expect he will be happy with what we have as he ok'd it once before. If we can get these issues wrapped up today, I think we are in shape for a vote. Kindest regards, Sean Issue 7386: Metadata_document and Timestamp definitions missing (lsr-identifiers-ftf) Summary: In PIM, there should be definitions (probably String) for the Metadata_document and Timestamp. Suggested Resolution: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:53:26 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: Sean Martin cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue #7386 X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.212, required 5, SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID 0.21) > please let me know if you are happy/unhappy with it > well, I cannot find it now (I posted it already) - and I have to go to a TC now - but I would like to add there (after "YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2000-12-31)) "...unless the Platform Specific Model uses its own standard" (or somethoing like that, you may find it in my previous emails...). Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger To: Martin Senger Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue #7386 updated text X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:19:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 11:27:49, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 11:27:49 Hopefully this does it for #7386? Suggested Resolution: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 3) Section 9, page 11, paragraph starting with "The expiration_date specifies..." - add after text "Date and Time Formats" [8]" the following text: "(unless the platform specific model defines otherwise)" Martin Senger 07/20/2004 09:53 AM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue #7386 > please let me know if you are happy/unhappy with it > well, I cannot find it now (I posted it already) - and I have to go to a TC now - but I would like to add there (after "YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2000-12-31)) "...unless the Platform Specific Model uses its own standard" (or somethoing like that, you may find it in my previous emails...). Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:32:33 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: Sean Martin cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue #7386 updated text X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > Hopefully this does it for #7386? > Yes, it does (at least for me :-)). I hope that you are not angry, Sean? Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Sean Martin'" , "Martin Senger" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:44:32 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE394571FK68079-01-01 Hi Sean, As Martin pointed out, the Specification already mentions that the format of Timestamp should follow the ISO recommendation. Now that it is to be a String type, this makes sense and just modifying the type to String is sufficient for me. I believe this doesn't apply to any embedded time's, simply to the data structure mentioned in the standard. Why would a PSM not use an existing standard? I've actually had a lot of experience dealing with this and it is a big pain to have to go in as a user and know what format this string is going to be in. It is much easier for the implementer to conform than it is for the user of a variety of services to have to deal with this String being in any number of formats. But in the grand scheme of things, this is a small matter. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:19 AM To: Martin Senger Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue #7386 updated text Hopefully this does it for #7386? Suggested Resolution: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 3) Section 9, page 11, paragraph starting with "The expiration_date specifies..." - add after text "Date and Time Formats" [8]" the following text: "(unless the platform specific model defines otherwise)" Martin Senger 07/20/2004 09:53 AM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue #7386 > please let me know if you are happy/unhappy with it > well, I cannot find it now (I posted it already) - and I have to go to a TC now - but I would like to add there (after "YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2000-12-31)) "...unless the Platform Specific Model uses its own standard" (or somethoing like that, you may find it in my previous emails...). Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:53:33 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" cc: "'Sean Martin'" , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > Why would a PSM not use an existing standard? > I think the opposite is what is suggested here. The PSM for HTTP bindings uses a standard as defined for the HTTP headers. Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Martin Senger'" cc: "'Sean Martin'" , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:06:06 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE38F611FK68133-01-01 Hi Martin, Sorry I wasn't clearer on this point, the Timestamp type in question here only refers to what is returned in the Metadata_response structure as the second field. The specification can only mandate what format that field should be in, not what should be in the HTTP headers. I believe that's the only place Timestamp appears as part of the lsid related information. thanks, Michael (I would argue that any date returned as a string should be in the ISO approved format, but that's a different argument) > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:54 AM > To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) > Cc: 'Sean Martin'; lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text > > > > Why would a PSM not use an existing standard? > > > I think the opposite is what is suggested here. The PSM > for HTTP bindings uses a standard as defined for the HTTP headers. > > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:14:12 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" cc: "'Sean Martin'" , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > the Timestamp type in question here only refers to what is returned in > the Metadata_response structure as the second field. The > specification can only mandate what format that field should be in, > not what should be in the HTTP headers. > Why not? The spec for a PSM clearly states that the field - as defined in PIM (the second field in the Metadata_response) - will be expressed as an HTTP header for this particular bindings. And because of that, its format will follow the standard for the HTTP header. What is wrong with this? Of course, I have not meant that our spec will change the HTTP header spec... Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Martin Senger'" cc: "'Sean Martin'" , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:28:49 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE389B71FK68215-01-01 Hi Martin, Thanks for the clarification--I'm still getting used to the world of SOAP and HTTP. > Why not? The spec for a PSM clearly states that the field > - as defined in PIM (the second field in the > Metadata_response) - will be expressed as an HTTP header for > this particular bindings. And because of that, its format > will follow the standard for the HTTP header. What is wrong with this? So this says that HTTP headers have no standardization for the format of time strings? That all queries that use different HTTP services cannot depend on a particular format so must be written custom per service in this regard? that doesn't sound right, or ideal, but this is not an area I have much expertise yet. cheers, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:14 AM > To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) > Cc: 'Sean Martin'; lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text > > > > the Timestamp type in question here only refers to what is > returned in > > the Metadata_response structure as the second field. The > > specification can only mandate what format that field should be in, > > not what should be in the HTTP headers. > > > Why not? The spec for a PSM clearly states that the field > - as defined in PIM (the second field in the > Metadata_response) - will be expressed as an HTTP header for > this particular bindings. And because of that, its format > will follow the standard for the HTTP header. What is wrong with this? > Of course, I have not meant that our spec will change the > HTTP header spec... > > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:39:38 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" cc: "'Sean Martin'" , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > So this says that HTTP headers have no standardization for the format of > time strings? > Who is saying that? Of course, it has... I am lost what you want to say... Regards, Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:05:31 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 14:05:32, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 14:05:32 My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the changes to the text for resolution of this issue as last described (see below). If this is not correct please let me know specifically what should change. Kindest regards, Sean Suggested Resolution: 1a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the 'Metadata_document as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Metadata_document. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 2a) Change the figure in chapter 7 to a new one (the new one defining the Timestamp as of type String). b) Replace the file LSID-XMI-.xml in the accompanied file with a new one reflecting the new type for Timestamp. c) Replace the files LSID.[jpg,png] in the accompanied files in order to reflect the same change as described above. 3) Section 9, page 11, paragraph starting with "The expiration_date specifies..." - add after text "Date and Time Formats" [8]" the following text: .(unless the platform specific model defines otherwise). "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 01:28 PM To "'Martin Senger'" cc Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 updated text Hi Martin, Thanks for the clarification--I'm still getting used to the world of SOAP and HTTP. > Why not? The spec for a PSM clearly states that the field > - as defined in PIM (the second field in the > Metadata_response) - will be expressed as an HTTP header for > this particular bindings. And because of that, its format > will follow the standard for the HTTP header. What is wrong with this? So this says that HTTP headers have no standardization for the format of time strings? That all queries that use different HTTP services cannot depend on a particular format so must be written custom per service in this regard? that doesn't sound right, or ideal, but this is not an area I have much expertise yet. cheers, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:14 AM > To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) > Cc: 'Sean Martin'; lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue #7386 updated text > > > > the Timestamp type in question here only refers to what is > returned in > > the Metadata_response structure as the second field. The > > specification can only mandate what format that field should be in, > > not what should be in the HTTP headers. > > > Why not? The spec for a PSM clearly states that the field > - as defined in PIM (the second field in the > Metadata_response) - will be expressed as an HTTP header for > this particular bindings. And because of that, its format > will follow the standard for the HTTP header. What is wrong with this? > Of course, I have not meant that our spec will change the > HTTP header spec... > > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Martin Senger'" , "Sean Martin" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:31:46 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE3AC851FK68605-01-01 Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:37:55 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" cc: Sean Martin , lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for > HTTP > Well, what do you mean by "services based on two different PSMs"? Each service is implemented using just one PSM (unless you count as separate PSMs different bindings - which I do not). > is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date > will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? > And for services implemented as web services using the HTTP GET binding, there will be *no* Metadata_response.experiation_date as a returned value of any method. But the same role will be fulfilled by HTTP headers ("expire" header) that will be send together with the operation (method, or how ever we call it) "getMetadata". And this headers will have always date in a well defined format (as defined in RFC XXX). Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:44:29 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 15:55:14, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 15:55:14 MM>With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, MM>is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date MM>will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? Could you please give us an example of two different PSM's for HTTP? Thanks, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 03:31 PM To "'Martin Senger'" , Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Martin Senger'" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:57:06 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE3A7751FK68696-01-01 Hi Martin, > Well, what do you mean by "services based on two different > PSMs"? Each service is implemented using just one PSM (unless > you count as separate PSMs different bindings - which I do not). Yes, so I mean there are two services each based on a different PSM. The use case I'm trying to describe is a client application that goes to more than one lsid service, and the case where there are two services that base their HTTP implementation on different PSMs. (Yes, 'services', in English can be read the way you are reading it, as 'those things that are served up by a service', it is a wonderful language, but I meant it as more than one service provider.) > And for services implemented as web services using the > HTTP GET binding, there will be *no* > Metadata_response.experiation_date as a returned value of any > method. But the same role will be fulfilled by HTTP headers > ("expire" header) that will be send together with the > operation (method, or how ever we call it) "getMetadata". Good point, but there is still an expiration_date to be read. What I'm hearing is that I need to know what service provider my client application is talking to in order to know what the format of the date is. cheers, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:38 PM > To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) > Cc: Sean Martin; lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > With the current wording, for services based on two > different PSMs for > > HTTP > > > Well, what do you mean by "services based on two different > PSMs"? Each service is implemented using just one PSM (unless > you count as separate PSMs different bindings - which I do not). > > > is it possible that the format for the > > Metadata_response.experiation_date > > will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? > > > And for services implemented as web services using the > HTTP GET binding, there will be *no* > Metadata_response.experiation_date as a returned value of any > method. But the same role will be fulfilled by HTTP headers > ("expire" header) that will be send together with the > operation (method, or how ever we call it) "getMetadata". > And this headers will have always date in a well defined > format (as defined in RFC XXX). > > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:59:48 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-EBI-Information: This email is scanned using www.mailscanner.info. X-EBI: Found to be clean X-EBI-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5) > hearing is that I need to know what service provider my client application > is talking to in order to know what the format of the date is. > No; your client must know to which PSM (and to which binding) it talks to. Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Sean Martin'" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:01:43 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE3A5991FK68722-01-01 Hi Sean, The wording implies that there can be two PSMs and hence the possibility of different date formats, I don't have a clue what one looks like. If there is one established, standard PSM for HTTP, then there can only be one date, which should be cited in the standard. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:44 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? MM>With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, MM>is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date MM>will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? Could you please give us an example of two different PSM's for HTTP? Thanks, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 03:31 PM To "'Martin Senger'" , Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:17:37 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 16:17:43, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 16:17:43 I think that what the spec says is that we should use what is defined in the spec (type string in isoformat) unless there is already defined a way to express a timestamp in a particular PSM, in which case that should be used instead. Using HTTP is only an example of a PSM where the timestamp format (although still a string) is defined as part of the HTTP protocol in various RFC's. Kindest regards, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 04:01 PM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi Sean, The wording implies that there can be two PSMs and hence the possibility of different date formats, I don't have a clue what one looks like. If there is one established, standard PSM for HTTP, then there can only be one date, which should be cited in the standard. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:44 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? MM>With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, MM>is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date MM>will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? Could you please give us an example of two different PSM's for HTTP? Thanks, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 03:31 PM To "'Martin Senger'" , Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > X-Server-Uuid: 48764CE8-FD0B-4606-A1C3-503FAD0548C7 From: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" To: "'Sean Martin'" cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:59:26 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-WSS-ID: 6CE34A211FK68993-01-01 Hi Sean and Martin, So I guess the answer is that I can't write client code that can interoperate with different lsid service providers seamlessly, that I will at least need to do research and know a priori what date format a particular implementation uses and encode that knowledge into my application. But this sounds like it is a wider issue than the lsid specification. Given that, I'm happy with the current text for issue #7386. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:18 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? I think that what the spec says is that we should use what is defined in the spec (type string in isoformat) unless there is already defined a way to express a timestamp in a particular PSM, in which case that should be used instead. Using HTTP is only an example of a PSM where the timestamp format (although still a string) is defined as part of the HTTP protocol in various RFC's. Kindest regards, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 04:01 PM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi Sean, The wording implies that there can be two PSMs and hence the possibility of different date formats, I don't have a clue what one looks like. If there is one established, standard PSM for HTTP, then there can only be one date, which should be cited in the standard. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:44 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? MM>With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, MM>is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date MM>will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? Could you please give us an example of two different PSM's for HTTP? Thanks, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 03:31 PM To "'Martin Senger'" , Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > To: "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: Sean Martin Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:35:18 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML259/01/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF433 | July 14, 2004) at 07/20/2004 18:39:19, Serialize complete at 07/20/2004 18:39:19 Hi Michael, I think that just about sums it up. The mitigating factor is that we expect most LSID service providers to more or less universally support the SOAP PSM which because of its nature [and widely available tooling] is likely to enjoy a reasonable amount of cross platform client/server stack support quickly (Windows COM [VB, JavaScript, MS C++),Java and Perl languages already implemented for this PSM). Kindest regards, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 05:59 PM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi Sean and Martin, So I guess the answer is that I can't write client code that can interoperate with different lsid service providers seamlessly, that I will at least need to do research and know a priori what date format a particular implementation uses and encode that knowledge into my application. But this sounds like it is a wider issue than the lsid specification. Given that, I'm happy with the current text for issue #7386. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:18 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? I think that what the spec says is that we should use what is defined in the spec (type string in isoformat) unless there is already defined a way to express a timestamp in a particular PSM, in which case that should be used instead. Using HTTP is only an example of a PSM where the timestamp format (although still a string) is defined as part of the HTTP protocol in various RFC's. Kindest regards, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 04:01 PM To Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org, "'Martin Senger'" Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi Sean, The wording implies that there can be two PSMs and hence the possibility of different date formats, I don't have a clue what one looks like. If there is one established, standard PSM for HTTP, then there can only be one date, which should be cited in the standard. thanks, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Sean Martin [mailto:sjmm@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:44 PM To: Miller, Michael (Rosetta) Cc: lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org; 'Martin Senger' Subject: RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? MM>With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, MM>is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date MM>will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? Could you please give us an example of two different PSM's for HTTP? Thanks, Sean "Miller, Michael (Rosetta)" 07/20/2004 03:31 PM To "'Martin Senger'" , Sean Martin/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS cc lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org Subject RE: issue #7386 text *not* updated? Hi All, I'm still not sure. I sent a few e-mails to Martin to try to get clarification for myself but I think I keep asking the question wrong because of my unfamiliarity in this area. With the current wording, for services based on two different PSMs for HTTP, is it possible that the format for the Metadata_response.experiation_date will be 'mm-dd-yy' for one and 'dd-mm-yy' for the other? thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Senger [mailto:senger@ebi.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:08 AM > To: Sean Martin > Cc: Miller, Michael (Rosetta); lsr-identifiers-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: issue #7386 text *not* updated? > > > > My read on the Martin/Michael to-and-fro is that we can leave the > > changes > > to the text for resolution of this issue as last described > (see below). If > > this is not correct please let me know specifically what > should change. > > > Yes, that's fine with me. > Martin > > -- > Martin Senger > > EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk > European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 > 494636 > Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) > Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 > Cambridge CB10 1SD > United Kingdom > http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger > > Metadata_document and Timestamp.