Re: [regrep] [Q] RDF API versus creating an ebXML Registry KnowledgeModel

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

>Farrukh,
>
>I agree 100% that having a single API is critically important.  There
>already is a perception that "ebXML" is too complicated for the average
>developer, giving rise to purpose-driven registries such as UDDI.
>Please don't add more APIs!
>  
>
+1

>If ebReg is to allow formats like RDF within a SubmitObjectsRequest, I
>would support adding a new type of request, call it CapabilitiesRequest,
>where a registry could list the types of XML data it can accept and
>where.  I think this would greatly benefit interoperability as this type
>of functionality is added.
>  
>
Actually there already exists a way for a Registry to declare its 
optional capabilities. This is within the attributes of the Registry 
class in RIM. No new request is needed to meet the intent of your good 
suggestion.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh