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: Resubmission of Distributed Registry Approaches.ppt

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?


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


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.



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

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC