Re: [regrep] "ebXML Registry and Web services" Federal Pilot

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

<Quote>
Is there any reason why we cannot use two (or more?) registries and show
them pointing at registry objects in each others domain? (Like a test
case for federation) 
</Quote>

I second this idea big time. I think demonstrating the concept of
federated registries interacting would be fantastic.

Joe

Duane Nickull wrote:
> 
> I completely disagree with Kathryns' statement.  Having a vendor step up
> and donate the use of a product for a PoC or ilot is a big commitment
> for a vendor.  Who has supported this (and other) groups over the last
> three years?  Who pays the bills for OASIS's memberships? It is largely
> the vendor community.  I personally have spent hundreds of personal
> hours working on specifications, attending meetings, spending time away
> from family etc. to make sure this and other work is done.  I do so
> freely and out of my personal interest that this work needs to happen.
>  I personally spent hundreds of ours arguing with my ex-employer begging
> them that we should build a registry because people will need PoC's.
>  Let's carefully consider this decision.  Having one or two vendors
> donate software for a PoC does not show favoratism from the TC.
> 
> If we chose the ebXMLrr, it should be because it matches the criteria
> for the project and nothing else, if there are other choices.
> 
> I would argue against using the ebXMLrr for a few reasons.  The first is
> that the clients require a fair amount of expertise to build and install
> on every persons machine who will use the registry (unless they build
> their own client - a far more daunting task).  I was also under the
> opinion that there are over 30+ outstanding bugs needing to be
> addresses, some over 30 days old. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
>  Nonetheless, it is a solid reference implementation of the registry server.
> 
> Idea:
> 
> Yellow Dragon Software would like its' registry product considered for
> this project too.  Is there any reason why we cannot use two (or more?)
> registries and show them pointing at registry objects in each others
> domain? (Like a test case for federation)
> 
> If it is going to be one and one only registry, then let's chose wisely
> based on a registry that meets the set of requirements for the pilot,
> not an abitrary choice based on the fact that their is a non-commercial
> interest.  The Messaging team contents with interoperability demos
> between 10 or more commercial products.  They don't appear to be playing
> favourites.  UDDI is the same with multiple vendors.  Even ebXML did
> PoC's with several vendors - no problem.
> 
> Let's see the list of requirements for the PoC , then decide.  That is
> the way any project should proceed IMHO.
> 
> Duane Nickull
> 
> Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
> 
> >About the pilot project - it would probably be best to try to use an open source implementation.  As a Standards TC, we have to be very careful about not appearing to endorse a particular vendor product.
> >
> >
> 
> --
> ***************************************************
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard