ebxml-regrep message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: RE: Distributed Registry Proposal Approach

Please consider the attached ppt that shows a potential architecture that
includes 1) and  2).  I am in an all day meeting, but I will check emails
during breaks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:najmi@east.sun.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 3:32 PM
To: Klaus-Dieter Naujok
Cc: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Distributed Registry Proposal Approach


Most of us are not privy to what went on in StC. We heard it second hand
Scott and at least I am not sure what the StC wanted. The requirements are

I had attempted to tease apart the requirements as follows below. Please
comment on which requirement is the focus of this StC suggestion.

1. Registry of Registries
The use case is that the user goes to a (or the) registry of registries and
discovers the registry that is likely to have the kind of content they care
about. For instances an automotive buyer may search for automotive
Once they find an appropriate registry they go to it and discover potential

The team felt this option may be doable within our time constraints. John
took an action item to make a proposal to the team.

2. Federated Registries
The use case is that a user sends a federated query to a group of registries
that have voluntarily united in a federation based on some common purpose or
specialization. A federation may be viewed by the client as a single logical
registry. A federated query from a client to any federation member produces
unified response from the members of the federation as if they were
one registry. Thus the user can search multiple registries in a federation
a single federated query.

Although there is a proposal in this area, the team felt this may be better
left for phase 2.

3. List *ALL* Businesses in UDDI with pointer to ebXML Registry for Details

The use case is that every business that is in an ebXML registry is also in
UDDI registry. The user discovers it in UDDI and then using some handle in
to the ebXML registry goes to the ebXML registry for the details. Note that
this use case is different from registry of registries since what gets
discovered is the business and not the registry. The registry is just an
association from the business that was discovered.

This use case generated the most confusion. The team felt that this use case
essentially makes the ebXML registries, classification and discovery not get
used since *ALL* discovery to find the business happens in UDDI. If we did
what would have been the point of building a substantial classification and
discovery mechanism in our registry. The team agreed that this option did
make sense.

I would like your clarification on which requirement did the StC suggest and
correct any misconception in the use cases outlined above.

Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:38:53 -0700, Phil Zimmerman wrote:
> >1) What is the business need for introducing a distributed registry
> >architecture?
> To find anyone anywhere in order to do business. For 17 months now
> have we told the world that his can be done by doing a single
> query. In other words, if Mary has Chocolate Shop and her
> information is stored in her Software provider's ebXML compliant
> register, her potential customers don't need who her provider is
> to find her. Instead they can query the system via any available
> entry point.
> >2) What problem/problems is/are being addressed?
> That of having to know more than that there maybe chocolate shops
> out there that one can do ebXML with. Without it I can only do
> business with those parties I know.
> >3) What group is being optimized for? The registry maintainers? The
> ebXML! In particular R&R. This requirement has been known since
> the beginning. At your last meeting in Vancouver the suggestion
> was made again by the StC that UDDI is a possible solution. You
> are running out of time! By doing so ebXML is about to fail. I
> strongly suggest that you stop debating and listen to what Mike
> said. The StC made that point to Scott at this weeks call. It may
> not be perfect, but it is better than nothing, which will
> unacceptable.
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:22:52 -0600, Mike Rawlins wrote:
> >Proposal:  For phase 1 use UDDI as the registry of registries (I am even
> >more amazed to find myself agreeing with Klaus!).   This, to me, has the
> >best chance of satisfying your highest priority constraint.  It also has
> >marketing/mindshare advantages which, while they aren't strictly
> >speaking technical constraints, certainly are important.
> Regards,
> Klaus
> --
> Klaus-Dieter Naujok                          ebXML & TMWG Chair
> Netfish Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Technology Officer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org


Registries update RofR.ppt

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC