RE: [regrep] Re: Support for External Repository Items

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

Len et al,

I forgot a few additional comments that I had on the details of the proposal
itself.  Sorry.  Here they are:

The concept of a "local" registry having an agreement with a "cooperating"
registry and this being legal in nature is somewhat new to me.  Are registry
to registry "cooperation" agreements like the one just described modeled
somewhere in ebXML or Oasis specifications yet?  What are the nature of
these agreements?

WRT your outline Item #5, if I know the "locationURL" (my terminology) for
an external item, then I should only return that.  

Is the security model rich enough yet to know that I could pass the
authorization capabilities of my caller's request on to a "cooperating"
registry?  

If someone has the authorization to learn that something is available in a
separate registry, does that give them the right to access that other
registry through the "local" one?  An analogy is I can find out your address
but that does not guarantee me the right to enter your home.

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Len Gallagher [mailto:LGallagher@nist.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:45 PM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [regrep] Re: Support for External Repository Items



Regrep members,

Attached is a revision of a proposal first distributed to this list on 
October 4. After comments to this list from Scott Hinkelman and personal 
off-line discussions with Nikola Stojanovic, it is clear that the attribute 
name "contentURI" is too ambiguous to be useful. This revised proposal 
changes it to "discoveryURL" in the Registry Information Model and changes 
it to "attachmentURI" when it is used in Registry Service XML elements for 
document submission or retrieval to reference a SOAP attachment.

-- Len


At 11:41 AM 10/5/01, Len Gallagher wrote:

>Regrep members,
>
>Attached is a short (3-page) issue and position paper that addresses the 
>topic of "How should our Registry handle the registration of repository 
>items that do not reside under the control of Registry Services?"
>
>One point of view is that all repository items are under the control of 
>the Registry, so we don't have a problem.
>
>Another point of view is that we can and should be able to create 
>RegistryEntry instances that describe a repository item that resides
elsewhere.
>
>The attached 3-page document discusses this issue, evaluates how our 
>Registry specifications handle both of these notions, and states my belief 
>that the Registry specifications should allow registration of external 
>repository items if the Registration Authority wants that to happen. I 
>present the outline of a proposal that would facilitate this capability.
>
>I'm making this proposal to the entire Registry team because I think it 
>impacts the deliberations of several of our sub-teams, especially query, 
>external scheme, and cooperating registries. I looked at the use cases 
>under cooperating registries and found that many of them would be 
>satisfied simply by allowing the Registry to register repository items 
>that live elsewhere. I think it's best to let the whole team see the issue 
>up front so that it can be discussed with input from all effected 
>sub-teams at the same time.
>
>-- Len

**************************************************************
Len Gallagher                             LGallagher@nist.gov
NIST                                      Work: 301-975-3251
Bldg 820  Room 562                        Home: 301-424-1928
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 USA           Fax: 301-948-6213
**************************************************************