[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9
I am not yet clear how an API based approach to providing queries can allow queries over the content - which is known ahead of time. The aspect of Farrukh's proposal that I liked most was the fact that I could index the content and then arbitrarily query the content. This open the door to some additional uses of the registry that might not be otherwise be possible. For example, schema for shipping/logistic service may choose to index their content so that an automated order fulfillment system, looking for the best shipper for their product, might query the service providers and look for the cheapest shipper that will get the package to a certain destination in the specified time. This example might not be accurate but hopefully you get the point. My point is, that to date, we have looked at registry services as providers of information, most likely to be consumed by humans ( and hence the browse and drill down patterns of UDDI). While this is certainly the most likely usage in the near term, long term one can see automated exchanges that enable consumer systems to search the content of the supplier systems in order to make automated decisions. To me it seems like that the ad hoc capability as described in Farrukh's proposal is necessary for this kind of search. My $.02 cents worth. Waqar Sadiq Vitria Technologies -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:16 AM To: Farrukh Najmi Cc: 'ebxml repository ' Subject: Re: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9 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.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC