Re: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Farrukh Najmi
>IMHO, The proposal does not show how the requirements identified in:

http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200101/msg00098.html

are being addressed. Nor does it state reasons why those requirements are
wrong.

I had considerable difficulty understanding the proposed approach. It seems
very vague.<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And the reason is because the details in msg00098.html are also EXTREMELY
vague and unimplementable - and the SQL examples offered up are flawed.

In working this last night I found that each RIM access method will need to
be
fleshed out in clear detail and the access metrics specified in plain
english text.
This is not ciurrently available.

Now - I would say that we do not have to have ALL of these done, just three
or
four good ones that clearly state the needed functionality.

Whereas you deride UDDI - they in fact have done this clearly and
succinctly.
And they have also realized - and you seem to have COMPLETELY IGNORED
this point that your beloved ad hoc query level of functionality is way
overkill,
very prone to vendor interpretation, and unnecessary.

Therefore I would state you are arbitarily and unnecessarily raising the
bar
10 feet of fhe ground here - when it only needs to be six inches.

Furthermore - the whole POINT of the method based approach is that it
does NOT provide chapter and verse code level detail - since that
will be highly vendor implementation specific.

Yes - it is a more flexible and extensible variant of the focus method 
approach - providing ad hoc ability to extend the access API services.

Therefore as I see it - we have a NO and a NO.  Two NO's make a no-go here.

DW.