[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposed Infrastructure SC
>Subject: RE: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC >Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:54:59 +0100 >From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk> > >[My e-mails to the list seem to bounce, I don't know if that is because >I have observer status, and observers aren't meant to participate?? - if >someone could forward this to the e-gov list I'd appreciate it] > >I think a requirements would be a very good step. The process I've >observed on other OASIS TC's is that any suggestion needs to be backed >up by real Use cases before any development work is done so as to avoid >the development of interesting and clever but totally unneeded >technologies. > > From a requirements document, I would suggest the next steps would be to >abstract the registries functionality such that it can be part of the >infrastructure and then look towards best practice guides on how >particular technologies (UDDI, ebXML, ISO11179 etc.) can be used to meet >the requirements and realise the abstraction. > >Matthew Dovey >Oxford University > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@yellowdragonsoft.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:58 PM > > To: Matthew Dovey > > Cc: echristi@usgs.gov; Robert Greeves; egov@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Just to clarify - I am a *huge* fan of not re-inventing > > stuff. In no way should we devise YARS (Yet another Registry > > Scheme). OASIS already has one more than they probably need > > (no flames please on which one is better ;-) > > > > The intent of my post was to convey my own experiences that a > > Best practices/implementation guide of existing registries > > would help eGov. > > Same with Architecture. If we do an architecture, it should > > possibly be on adapting an existing architecture such as > > ebXML or WSA to eGov. > > > > What would also be nice is a requirements document. Perhaps > > some of the Gov folks can steer the next actions for this > > group based on what is needed. I am also a huge fan of > > technology being driven by real world needs. The last thing > > we all need to do is to develop new technology that will sit > > on a shelf becuase no one actually needs it. > > > > Duane Nickull > > > > Matthew Dovey wrote: > > > > >There is a wealth of activity on metadata registries ranging > > from ISO 11179 Schema registries to technotes on how to use > > UDDI and ebXML in this context. I may be misinterpreting the > > remit of this SC and this TC (having only recently joined as > > an observer) but I would have thought that an overview of > > these technologies plus perhaps best practice/recommendations > > on implementing these technologies would be useful. However, > > the SC should not invent yet another new technology/approach > > where ones already exist (but I don't think that is the intent). > > > > > >Matthew Dovey > > >Oxford University > > >_____________Original message ____________ > > >Subject: Re: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC > > >Sender: Robert Greeves <GREEVESR@OJP.USDOJ.GOV> > > >Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 03:49:10 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > > > > > These are issues that are very important to what we are currently > > > pursuing in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. > > > However, my concern is whether they (a) belong in the > > Infrastructure > > > Working Group and/or (b) whether they even belong in this > > TC? Aren't > > > there other TC's focusing on this type of capability? > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > > ***** > > > > > > >>> Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com> 04/02/03 01:02PM >>> > > > I would propose one deliverable be an implementation/best practices > > > guide for Governments to implement a metadata Registry for > > publishing > > > and subsequent discovery of key metadata. My past experience with > > > government registries has been very enlightening and I can > > see a clear > > > value in delivering such a proposal. I woudl also argue > > that this may > > > be a good first deliverable due to the amount of current > > interest in > > > establishing a Registry centric concept of operations for many > > > governments. > > > > > > I can flesh this idea out further if there is interest. Can we > > > solicit comments from the governments participating on this list? > > > Please give this idea a sanity check ;-) > > > > > > If it goes ahead, I would volunteer to get this started. > > > > > > The other candidate may be an architecture for using > > Registries within > > > eGovernment to help guide implementations. As opposed to a > > technical > > > architecture, this could be a reference architecture. > > > > > > Duane Nickull > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]