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. Scott -----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 Klaus, Most of us are not privy to what went on in StC. We heard it second hand from Scott and at least I am not sure what the StC wanted. The requirements are not clear. 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 registries. Once they find an appropriate registry they go to it and discover potential parties. The team felt this option may be doable within our time constraints. John Petit 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 a unified response from the members of the federation as if they were logically one registry. Thus the user can search multiple registries in a federation with 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 the UDDI registry. The user discovers it in UDDI and then using some handle in UDDI 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 this what would have been the point of building a substantial classification and discovery mechanism in our registry. The team agreed that this option did not 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 users? > > 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 -- Regards, Farrukh
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC