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

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

Duane Nickull wrote:

>
>
> I would still like to see the set of requirements for this PoC.  Does 
> anyone have them? Can we discuss how two or more registries can work 
> together?

First I want to point out that POC, Pilots, Conformance testing, Interop 
testing and are all different things, each with their own value.

We did POC's in early days of the spec when we needed to have a "Proof 
Of Concept" that indeed the ideas held water.

Now that we have specs and implementations of those specs, we need to 
focus on user adoption and for that IMO, we need pilots next.

To demonstrate maturity of the standard we need to focus next on 
developing a conformance test specification so that vendors can pass the 
tests and claim conformance to the standard.

Once we have 2 or more implementations that claim conformance we can 
then do interop testing as the final proof of the maturity of the 
standard by showing multiple interoperating implementations.

>
>
> I would like to see the following:
>
> 1. Registry "A" has several intrinsic objects
> 2. Registry "B" points at Registry "A"'s intrinsic objects as 
> extrinsic objects.
> 3. Registry "C" points at both objects but recognizes that Registry 
> "A" is the true source of the intrinsic objects.
> 4. A registry user can query for a Registry object in registry B or C 
> but when they wish to get a copy ofthe registry object, the "get" 
> clause grabs it from its' home registry ("A").
> 5. Registry B and C know that they must renew their metadata from 
> Registry "A" at either (choice):
>
>       - a certain pre-determined time
>       - when they receive a notification from registry A that the 
> object has new metadata association with it.
>
> 6. an object in Registry "A" is associated to an object in Registry 
> "B" by a "users" association.
> 7. A classification scheme from registry C branches to the top level 
> node of Registry B or A and can be replicated dynamically.
>
> ....
>
> comments?
>
Above lists is ad hoc and is not entirely consistent in use of terms and 
concepts from current specs. I would like to suggest that we initiate 
two parrallel activities:

1) A federal pilot with ebXML Registry as  suggested in Joe's email. The 
details of that would be driven by the pilot and customers involved and 
contrained by the features available in the implementation chosen by the 
customer.

2) Create a sub-team regrep-conformance that begins work on defining a 
V2.5 compatible Conformance Test specification

-- 
Farrukh