Re: Resubmission of Distributed Registry Approaches.ppt

[Lisa Carnahan <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>]

Hi Scott and All,

A few questions:

1. Is your slide showing that all queries intending to get back a
'federated' answer must use the BIG registry (I'm not typing 'registry of
registries' each time)?  Couldn't this be a source of
bottle-neck?   Is you model showing that a BIG registry exists
within a given sector, or all of ebXML?

2. Given that you have defined a BIG registry, is OASIS or UN/CEFACT
going to build/bless one?

I'm not significantly involved in any one specific industry sector. 
However my impression from those that I deal with is that one distributed
model for registries is not going to satisfy them all.   With
all due respect to Klaus, I believe that the requirement of 'anyone
from any sector can query any ebXML registry and get back a meaningful
answer (rather than 'not found here')'  is a bit much.  I
agree with this as a goal when we talk about a  given sector. 
However, the decision of which distributed model to implement should be
left to those serving the given industry so that it fits their business
cases. (We can specify services to support various models, however I
don't know if it makes sense to mandate any one.)  Being part of a
federation should be voluntary, not mandatory (unless it is a requirement
for a brand).   Once registries for industry sectors are
established we can discuss the need for a federation of BIG registries. I
view most of this as a policy issue and that if registries see a business
case for cooperating with each other, they will.  

Having said this,  I agree with Mike Rawlins that given our time
frame, if we have to specify something then we could write a
policy in the RIM that for the intial phase, ebXML registries mat be
found through the UDDI mechanism.   I view most of this as a
policy issue and that if registries see a business case for cooperating
with each other, they will.  We can then revisit this in phase II,
after we gain some experience in this area, and see how registries are
used, and the need for registry cooperation (or ebXML policy).

Scott, we need to come to closure on this quickly.  If folks want to
go beyond the UDDI option (and I can't determine consensus either way)
then proposals that are ready to be dropped into the specifications need
to come forward ASAP.     Looking at the schedule, is
it correct that we only have until April 23rd? 

--lisa

At 10:02 PM 4/2/01 -0500, Nieman, Scott wrote:

> All,
>
> Since no has replied to my powerpoint emailed earlier today, I have
> taken
> the liberty to update it.  I have added a pass/fail acknowledgement
> back
> from the registries to the registry of registries (RofR), and also
> another
> potential approach involving client side filtering vs. putting the burden
> on
> the RofR.  
>
> I am still more in favor of server side filtering but am throwing this
> out
> as another alternative to debate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott

Lisa Carnahan

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Information Technology Laboratory

100 Bureau Drive Stop 8970

Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

301-975-3362 voice

301-948-6213 fax

lisa.carnahan@nist.gov