Re: [ebxml-dev] RE: [EDI-L] Article on ebXML Core Components

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Although I agree with the conclusions, there is some misinformation here 
that needs to be corrected.

Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote <snipped>:

>>>Will the registry/repository concept for ebXML eventually merge with its
>>>counterpart defined for UDDI/Web Services ?
>>>
>
>There are some fundamental issues that might prevent this as well as the political 
>ones.
>
>UDDI is a registry only...no repository, where as ebXML has both.  That could (and 
>
ebXML specifies only the registry interfaces, information model, etc. 
 The details of the repository that is served by the registry is left up 
to the implementer.  So, they aren't that far apart in this regard.

>
>The big issue is that UDDI has been designed to be a "global" public directory 
>(though that does not preclude private implementations), with support for federation 
> distribution of nodes (meaning that the distributed system appears as a single 
>global registry).  Whereas ebXML RegRep has been designed as a community-level 
>registry, to target a specific group of parties with a common interest (a supply chain, 
>industry vertical, etc.) and no provision has been made for distribution/federation.  
>
While that is true for the V1.0 and latest specs, the original 
requirements for the ebXML registry were that it be a fully distributed, 
networked registry.  That functionality has yet to be delivered, but I 
assume that the OASIS TC still has it in their workplan.

-- 
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com