Re: [regrep] RE: Updated ROWS proposal ...

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Furthermore, why should the job of facilitating as Dan put it below...

    "a single set of complementary and consistent specifications
    rather than with multiple specifications having duplicate/overlapping
    functionality"

be soley the burden of OASIS ebXML Registry. UDDI does not pause for a
second
before duplicating our functionality. In fact the mere mention of OASIS
ebXML Registry in
UDDI forum brings about unpleasant consequences.

Why should we slow down our progress and coordinate with UDDI every time we
have a new feature to define when UDDI is unencumbered in similar ways?

I am sorry, but I do not consider my sentiments to be flames. They are
simply expressing the logic behind my thinking as to why it is absurd to ask
UDDI's permission every time we need to do a new feature.

--
Regards,
Farrukh


David RR Webber - XMLGlobal wrote:

> Message text written by Dan Chang
> >
> Joel,
>
> I agree with your objections to this proposal. It is strange and
> non-uniform to make ebXML Registry a general purpose registry AND a
> business service registry.
>
> I am also deeply concerned that this proposal explicitly
> duplicates/overlaps UDDI functionality. I believe the industry is better
> served with a single set of complementary and consistent specifications
> rather than with multiple specifications having duplicate/overlapping
> functionality.
>
> Regards,  Dan<
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Dan,
>
> The two teams are focused on different peices (or should be).
>
> Problem is - we've not actually demarced this - or set in place
> a true collaboration committee or working mechanisms.
>
> We asked for this six months ago, we asked for it a year ago
> when UDDI was launched.
>
> If you don;t build a bridge, then two towns will develop on
> separate sides of the river.
>
> Its a classic situation.
>
> It would be excellent if IBM could lead a go forward plan here,
> but I'm not sure there is any incentive to do this right now.
>
> It appears to me there are now lukewarm bridge building
> analysis in place - which states the cost of building the
> bridge is not worth the returns or benefits and would
> take resources away from building other more needed
> pieces in the short-term.
>
> All makes sense to me.   But I expect these metrics could
> change soon - so be prepared to re-assess when they
> do.
>
> Thanks, DW.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh Najmi
end:vcard