RE: R of R - sellers, but no buyers??

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>]

The point you are making David is part of my fundamental statement that a
physical Registry CPP is required.

Yes, I would love to be able to search on google.com and find a bunch of
ebXML compliant registries.  
That would at least allow us to "crawl" (a little pun intended) before we
"walk" and certainly before we are fully "running".

However, that is not a federated approach, but its better than nothing.  

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:51 AM
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'Scott Hinkelman '; 'Farrukh Najmi '; ''ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
' '; 'Farrukh Najmi '
Subject: R of R - sellers, but no buyers??


Message text written by "Farrukh"
>> Note that the registry of registries case is special since in that
case it
> is
> likely that each registry would register its own explicit CPP in the
> registry
> of registries. <

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Farrukh,

Why is this likely?

Since we can spec' that the CPP goes in an ebXML sub-directory
off the URL of the registry site - then we remove the need for R of R
as a required piece.

Or this in the category of "shameless plug for my company's approach",
which is totally OK - BTW - but just trying to unravel the knotted string
here a little bit ; -)

Scott H said this very succintly yesterday -
"Non-replicated community-based ebXML Registries would likely reflect
change
more quickly, and not need to scale
with volumes appropriate across all sectors. I also believe this two-tiered
approach sets direction on path for any
future ultimate integration".

Thanks, DW.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org