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

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Duane Nickull wrote:

> I completely disagree with Kathryns' statement. .... 

Duane, As my son says to me when I yell at him: "Take it easy big guy" ;-)

It is clear that Kathryn's statement was only in the context of any 
official TC sponsored activity and not the pilot that Joe suggested.

>
> I would argue against using the ebXMLrr for a few reasons ....

I make it a point to never place ebxmlrr in a competitive posture with 
any commercial ebXML Vendor and I definitely do not bad-mouth any 
commercial offering. Your speaking negatively on ebxmlrr would not be 
productive for our common goals. I will not bother defending against 
your assertions.

>
>
> 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. 

This is a good idea and leads to something I am sure Mike Kass would 
approve and that I have long wanted to propose getting (re)started. We 
need to develope a Conformance Test Specification within the TC. NIST 
did an initial  document, ebxmlrr tested that documents tests, automated 
them in ebxmlrr and provided full feedback to NIST. That work has been 
dormant and needs someone to take ownership of (hint hint Mike). I 
propose we create a conformance sub-team and begin this work rights 
away. Once a spec is available we can work with the IIC (I believe Mike 
Kass is already our liasion with IIC) to get them focused on registry 
interops.

>
>
> 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.
>>  
>>
>


-- 
Farrukh