[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Workflow
Anne Thomas Manes wrote: >I beg to differ. >- Most databases can now handle arbitary content very easily. They can store >any arbitray XML as a CLOB, or they can shred an XML document and map the >various elements to a set of tables -- your choice. > Content Management requires more than storing something as a CLOB. It requires life cycle mangement >Most databases now also >support XPath and XQuery queries against both CLOBs and shredded data (and >even against regular relational data) -- returning results as XML. > Some may do so in a proprietary way. They do not do this in a standard way. >- Many databases now provide a Web interface that supports SQL, XPath, and >XQuery queries. > Some may do so in a proprietary way. They do not do this in a standard way. >- SQL has been a standard for much longer than XML. The SQL System tables >are standard metadata representations > > Systems tables do not define services, organizations, people, resources etc. They define tables, columns, indexes etc. Stuff that no one in real life cares about. >- Most databases allow you to expose stored procedures and table function as >Web services. Table functions can also invoke Web services. > Some may do so in a proprietary way. They do not do this in a standard way. >- All databases provide extremely rich, fine-grained authentication and >authorization services -- admitedly the administration process is >proprietary, but in all cases it just comes down to mapping an authetication >token to a principal and then applying the authorization rules. > Some may do so in a proprietary way. They do not do this in a standard way. Not ONE of them supports the rich capabilities of XACML. We adopted XACML literally the day it was finalized! >All database >systems support signatures as an authentication mechanism. How the mechanism >works is transparent to the user -- only the administrator has to worry >about setting it up. > That has not been my experience. >- All database systems support content-based notification services -- and >they are customizable to support a variety of notification mechanisms. You >can receive your notification via IM, email, SOAP, etc. > Some may do so in a proprietary way. They do not do this in a standard way. > >I agree that database systems don't provide first class support for >taxonomies -- although it's pretty trivial to store a taxonomy in a >database. I generally think of taxonomies as a feature of the registry, >though, not the repository. > >The big downsides to storing arbitrary data in a relational database are: >- performance of CLOB searches and shredding is generally horrendous >- A database doesn't provide version management facitlities > +1 > >I tend to be rather conservative about data stores, so I would discourage >most people from storing XML metadata in a relational database. The more >pressing question is why not just store the metadata in a traditional >content management system? > What exactly is a traditional CMS? There are NO CMS standards today. ebXML Registry is the only CMS standard I am aware of. Please confirm or deny this assertion. I would venture to say that an ebXML Registry is a better CMS because it is built on the latest standards and has sophisticated feature set. The questions is: Why not ebXML Registry? Is there something inherently wrong with it? Here is my mantra for ebXML Registry V3: -ebXML Registry is to web service what databases were to enterprise applications -ebXML Registry is a general purpose Content Management System today. Here is my mantra for ebXML Registry V4: -ebXML Registry will be a Semantic Content Management System in version 4 -ebXML Registry will be to the Semantic Web what Web Servers are to the Web today -ebXML Registry will be the Semantic Web Server Carl please consider above for our brochure ;-) This is a great thread for helping us articulate our niche and core competency. Thanks. -- Farrukh > >Anne > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Farrukh Najmi" <farrukh.najmi@sun.com> >To: "Peter Kacandes" <pkacande@adobe.com> >Cc: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; ><regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> >Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:36 PM >Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Workflow > > > > >>Peter Kacandes wrote: >> >> >> >>>The other question I get is why shouldn't they just use a database? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Here is an initial listr of reasons why ebXML Registry is better: >> >>-Databases cannot handle arbitrary content very well >> >>-Databases do not provide a standards based web interface >> >>-Databases do not provide standards based distributed capabilities >> >>-Databases do not provided a standard metadata representation >> >>-Databases do not provided authentication based on digital signatures in >>a standard way >> >>-Databases do not provided fine grained authorization based in a >>standard way >> >>-Databases do not provide content based event notification in a standard >> >> >way > > >>-Databases do not provide first class support for taxonomies >> >>-Databases do not provide first class support for services >> >>-Databases do not provide first class support for content management >>(cataloging, validation) >> >> >> >>-- >>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 > > > > >You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]