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

["Peter Kacandes" <pkacande@adobe.com>]

I would very much second the idea of the pilot and particularly a
demonstration of federation between multiple registries.

On Monday we participated in a Web Services demo for that group and
demonstrated the use of the ebXMLrr with PDF/XML documents for the eGrants
schema and using SOAP to connect to Web Services.

The demo received a very positive response and we have received multiple
requests for further presentations of the demo with other agencies.

Going forward we would be happy to work with others to demonstrate more
advanced use of the registry such as federation etc.

cheers

pk


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh.najmi@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:13 AM
To: Duane Nickull
Cc: Breininger, Kathryn R; Chiusano Joseph; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org;
Karl F Best (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [regrep] "ebXML Registry and Web services" Federal Pilot


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



You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
php