RE: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Not much of "this stuff" is "new", just the space has changed.

Scott Hinkelman
Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
Emerging Technologies, SWG
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 09/21/2000
02:54:47 PM

To:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Ebxml Transport
      <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>, Rik Drummond
      <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  RE: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool



Message text written by "Burdett, David"
>
More specifically you have to either:
1. Give a unique id to the combination of process, step, transport etc that
you are going to use, or (IMO a better way)
2. Give the Party Agreement a Unique Id and then give each process, step,
transport, etc an id that is unique within the Party Agreement.

Thoughts?

David<

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

David,

I definately like the approach 2) - particularly in the context of the
Registry
again - and being able to create re-usable agreement classifications.

Of course all this profile stuff is not new - the online providers of
address book managers and similar have been all doing this anyway -
and of course we may anticipate that some of this may migrate its
way into an ebXML Registry and or UDDI or at least XML formats that
are semantically defined in the Registry.

Thanks, DW.