RE: Demonstrating Reg/Rep

["Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>]

Since there are several groups/individuals working on 
registry services implemented
as ebXML messages, it seems to me that there could be room to let some
people work on the submission subset of the services and others on the
query/classify/discover subset. 

As far as scope goes, the query api is more complex (IMO) 
than the submission.
It may make for a better "demo" but I think that marketing side of
things can be overdone.

Also only the asynch side of the query api is to be done, which means
that a browser based approach is not too easy to pursue (the synch
response to a browser submit/post would be easier scopewise,  wouldn't it?)
So the approaches to GUI are somewhat unnaturally restricted too

I would like to see, for example, whether a Party to Registry PA is
really useful/needed in the bootstrap. Vancouver I guess.

I do agree that it will be difficult to get all the services ready
to go during the remainder of this month, but I have a lot
of reservations on dwelling on the asynch-query requests/responses
to the exclusion of  the more pedestrian submit stuff.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 11:32 PM
> To: Farrukh Najmi; JP Morgenthal
> Cc: ebxml-Poc (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Demonstrating Reg/Rep
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 	Sorry for the late reply. When I was looking thru all 
> e-mails to see if I
> had missed any comments on the POC doc, I came across this 
> e-mail. IMHO, we
> should avoid the submission and other APIs during the demo for now. As
> Farrukh pointed out, just a question of keeping the scope 
> under control.
> 
> 	cheers
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:45 PM
> To: JP Morgenthal
> Cc: ebxml-Poc (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Demonstrating Reg/Rep
> 
> 
> The RR api side of the vocabulary is adequate for showing 
> this functionality
> to
> the best of my knowledge. However, as a scope reduction it 
> may be OK to not
> exercise this functionality in the POC demo. This would imply that all
> content
> would be pre-existing in the RR. Krishna do you feel this is 
> a reasonable
> scope
> reduction to avoid submission during the demo?
> 
> 
> JP Morgenthal wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> >         In section 2.2.3 of the ebXML Registry and 
> Repository Registry
> > Services Proposal, there is a definition of a service to submit the
> required
> > schema documents to the repository.  Do we wish to demonstrate this
> > capability as part of track 1?  It also allows for Business Process
> > documents, but I believe the vocabulary for this part has not been
> completed
> > as of yet.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > =============================
> > JP Morgenthal
> > CTO
> > XMLSolutions Corporation
> > VM: (703) 506-1111 x 7306
> > C: (703) 298-5630
> > E: jp.morgenthal@xmls.com
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
> 
>