[jsdl-wg] Activity Instance schema

[Alexander Papaspyrou]

Steven,

2008/4/16, Steven Newhouse <Steven.Newhouse at microsoft.com>:
> The addition of provenance is one useful addition provided by this concept... especially
> if the document is being passed around from broker to broker and BES endpoint. For
> this provenance to be useful it needs to be trusted... how are you going to record who
> (really) changed thing... signing or something else? And how will you stop the
> document and change history growing ecessively...?

from my point of view, I don't see the document to be "passed around".
Instead, I'd like an endpoint where I can access and modify the
document throughout the entire process plus the ability to "finalize"
a certain version after the activity's lifecycle has ended. This
introduces a slightly different notion of trust (the endpoint has to
AAA the manipulator of the document).

What's more, a model for the handover from one broker to another is
necessary, since both have to agree on the delegation *and then* write
provenance information both are happy with.

Regarding the size, I agree that an activity record could grow pretty
large. But I don't see the problem here -- that's up to the
implementors of the activity backend. As I said before, I wouldn't
pass around the whole document, but a reference to it solely.

Anyway, for the document schema itself, I don't think these aspects
are an issue (except for the finalization, maybe). When it comes to
consuming/providing services, however, we need to discuss that again.

Regards,
Alexander

-- 
Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Papaspyrou
http://ds.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~alexp

 Robotics Research Institute                   phone : +49(231)755-5058
 Information Technology Section                fax   : +49(231)755-3251
 Dortmund University of Technology, Germany