Cross Post from eGov TC

[Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com>]

Sorry in advance for the cross post.
*****************************

Registry Federation - I think so but I would like to hear directly from 
the government users who are thinking of using Registry.  I am a huge 
fan of listening to what users want as opposed to telling them what they 
want ;-)

Validation between registries - assuming federation is a go,  the 
federate() methods would be logically capable of comparing two registy 
objects (or their metadata) to determine if they are the same or 
different.   I see that federation would likely be done by passing 
references (RIM metadata only) as opposed to passing the actual object 
so validating an object that another registry has already validated may 
not be necessary (or possible).   Will one registries intrinsic object 
become anothers extrinsic object?  I am not sure.  I would really again 
like to defer the question to the end user community who can pass their 
requirements to this group.  We can then map those requirements to the 
existing technology and make notes of any gaps.  The gaps should be 
forwarded to the Regrep group, IMO.

Duane Nickull

-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Professional Software Development & Metadata Management
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time





Zachary Alexander wrote:

> Duane,
>
> Do you think there is a requirement for registry federation and is there
> a need for validation between registries?
>
> Zachary Alexander
> the IT Investment Architect ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325
> http://www.ebTDesign.com
> http://www.p2pspeaker.com
> http://www.p2peconomy.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@yellowdragonsoft.com] Sent: 
> Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:00 PM
> To: Farrukh Najmi
> Cc: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness; OASIS eGov list; Chiusano Joseph
> Subject: Re: [egov] eGov infrastructure requirements discussion
>
> The type of content validation that was being referred to was slightly 
> different than the in-registry contetn validation (my read anyways).
>
> From a pure architectural standpoint, validation to ascertain that 
> something is within acceptable constraints should be done at the point 
> closest to where a consequence will occur if it is invalid.  If 
> someone is using a Registry artifact, it makes sense to validate it at 
> the point
>
> closest to where it will get consumed (near the client side 
> application that will consume it). Validating the artifact before it 
> gets sent leaves open the possibility that it become corrupt during 
> its subsequent
>
> serialization/deserialization from the transport layer or during 
> transport itself.
>
> Validating from the POV that the Registry needs to know that the content
>
> is valid before it accepts the artifact is good.  That should be and 
> is done when an item is submitted to the registry.  The machine 
> validation (syntax and structure) and possible RA scrutiny are needed 
> to ensure that the Registry content does not contain any errant or 
> even malicious content.  (Perhaps some small porn site operator tries 
> to register a CPA
>
> as XXXX Automobile Company?)  Many of you may laugh at thsi but it 
> happened in the UDDI reference implementation as well as rumours of 
> similar behaviour within the first Biztalk Repository.
>
> I just wanted to point out that there are two different sets of 
> requirements for validation.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>  
>
>> Actually, if you view a registry as a general purpose content 
>> management system (this is how ebXML Registry has evolved - details 
>> available if needed), then semantic validation (not schema based 
>> syntax validation)  is  a feature of such a system. An ebXML Registry 
>> for example can perform content specific  semantic validation of 
>> arbitrary content  using its plug-in based content validation feature.
>> Such validation could be done on client side but in general an 
>> automated  server side validation is a much better solution to meet 
>> the requirements. The way this works in ebXML Registry is:
>>
>> -A responsible organization that defines a new type of content 
>> publishes a content validation service to the registry. Such a service
>>   
>
>
>  
>
>> is a simple web service conforming to a normative interface. For 
>> example the ebXML CPPA team may publish a CPP validation service .
>>
>> - a use submits content that is an instance of a content type (e.g. 
>> ebXML CPP).
>>
>> -The registry checks if there is a validation service registered for 
>> that content type.
>>
>> -If a validation service exists then registry invokes it automatically
>>   
>
>
>  
>
>> and validates the content.
>>
>> -If the content is valid accoding to teh validation service then it is
>>   
>
>
>  
>
>> accepted by the registry. If not valid then it is rejected with an 
>> appropriate error message.
>>
>> Above feature of ebXML Registry makes me wonder why one would need any
>>   
>
>
>  
>
>> validation requirements to be met on the client side.
>>
>>   
>
>
>  
>

-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Professional Software Development & Metadata Management
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time


-- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
Web Services & ebXML Messaging / Registry Downloads
Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
Phone:   +1 (604) 738-1051 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time
Direct:  +1 (604) 726-3329