Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Dave:

The essential business artifacts and any other artifacts can all be 
referenced in a registry today.  Furthermore,  the registry allows for 
all relevant metadata to be placed in the existing RIM.

No one has identified any shortcoming of the v2.0 registry where the RIM 
fails to meet the needs of the artifacts.

Furthermore,  most of the artifacts from the CC and BP* teams, with the 
sole exception of  BPSS, have not been serialized into any electronic 
format that can be stored in a registry (or even a file folder for that 
matter).

Until this is done, asking the Registry team to make special allowances 
for something that currently doesn't exist makes no sense to me.

IMO, what I hear people suggest seems to be more related to presentation 
of the artifacts themselves, which is not the responsibility of the 
registry team.

Duane

Dave Welsh wrote:
> -1
> 
> I can imagine that not making the essential business artifacts 1st class
> might sound technically nice but we are trying to enable business.
> 
> I think there will be a set of business focused use case 'asks' for
> specialized business services we'd hope the Registry will provide; to
> make the business experience even more effective. Therefore, in the
> interest of the business community, I'd like to suggest waiting for the
> CC and BP teams input before passing any judgment. 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
>>Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:58 AM
>>To: Farrukh Najmi
>>Cc: Fuger, Sally; Chiusano Joseph; David RR Webber - XML ebusiness;
> 
> OASIS
> 
>>Registry List
>>
>>+1
>>
>>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your suggestion has definitely crossed my mind. I have asked myself:
>>>"maybe CCTS, BPSS, CPP/A are special and maybe we should give them
>>
> first
> 
>>>class status?"
>>>
>>>After careful analysis I feel that it would be a mistake to give
>>
> them
> 
>>>first class status no matter how "integral" a part of ebXML they
>>
> are. We
> 
>>>still must not have a tight coupling to them in ebXML Registry. Here
>>
> are
> 
>>>some reasons why not:
>>>
>>>-It is not necessary. No use case has been articulated that cannot
>>
> be
> 
>>>met without having a binding to the generic ebXML Registry as it is
>>
>>today.
>>
>>>-It violates ebXML Architecture's goal of avoiding tight dependency
>>>between ebXMl specs (Duane can remind us of the exact verbiage I am
>>
>>sure)
>>
>>>-It is not a good design. A good design keeps layers one spec on
>>
> another
> 
>>>and avoids a circular dependency. CCTS should depend on ebXML
>>
> Registry
> 
>>>(which is a foundational spec) but not the other way around.
>>>
>>>-It tells others non-ebXML specs (e.g. HL7, OGC, OAG, etc.) to "do
>>
> as we
> 
>>>say, not as we do". That would not only be be hypocritical it would
>>>create complexity due to special case handling resulting in creating
>>
> two
> 
>>>ways of doing the same thing.
>>>
>>>I feel that this issue cuts to the very essence of the core
>>
> philosophy
> 
>>>of our ebXML Registry specifications (extensible, generic,
>>>content-neutral architecture) and urge that we reach a common
>>>understanding on this issue soon. To that end I propose that we make
>>>this the main/sole agenda item for our next TC meeting.
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>VP Strategic Relations,
>>Technologies Evangelist
>>XML Global Technologies
>>****************************
>>ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 


-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/