[Fwd: Re: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship with otherstandards]

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Comments inline on draft text:

> [3.] A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to 
> similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing 
> organizations.
>
>>
>> The OASIS ebXML Registry 3.0 specifications are aligned with a 
>> variety of other OASIS standards as described below.
>>
>>     * The OASIS Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security 1.0
>>       specification is used to  provide Message Security for the
>>       Registry protocol.
>>     * The OASIS Web Services Security: SOAP Message with Attachments
>>       (SwA) Profile 1.0 specification is used to  provide Message
>>       Security for SOAP attachments within the Registry protocol.
>>     * The OASIS XACML 1.0 specification is used to define the syntax
>>       for registry Access Control Policies.
>>     * The OASIS SAML 2.0 specifications are used to support Federated
>>       Identity Management and Single Sign On within the registry
>>
>> The OASIS ebXML Registry 3.0 specifications have some similarities 
>> with the OASIS UDDI 3.0 standard in that both specifications define a 
>> registry standard.
>
> [mm1] Change to:
> Limited similarities exist between the OASIS ebXML Registry v3.0 and 
> OASIS UDDI v3.0.
>
>> Both specifications define a registry that is a web service. Both 
>> specifications define a registry that may be used as a registry for 
>> web services.
>> The two specifications have been independently developed and neither 
>> specifications uses the other as a dependency. 
>
> [mm1] Change to: Both specifications define a registry for web 
> services and a registry exposed as a web service. No explicit 
> dependencies exist between the two OASIS specification efforts.
>
>> While UDDI 3.0 specifies a registry only, ebXML Registry 3.0 
>> specifies both a registry and a repository. 
>
> [mm1] UDDI 3.0 specifies a registry only, while ebXML Registry 3.0 
> specifies both a registry and a repository.
>
>> In addition the OASIS ebXML Registry 3.0 specifications provide 
>> several other features that are not provided by UDDI 3.0. These include:
>
> [mm1] Change to (place in same paragraph as sentence above):
> Other unique and value-added features of OASIS ebXML Registry v3.0 
> include:
>
>>     * Custom domain specific artifact discovery queries using SQL-92
>>       and XML Filter Query syntax
>>     * Life cycle management and governance of artifacts
>>     * Automatic version control of artifacts
>
> [mm1] Combine last two bullets: Life cycle management and artifact 
> governance including automatic version control
>
>>     * Content based event notification using domain specific queries
>>     * Parameterized registry-resident (stored) queries
>>     * User-defined, domain specific, taxonomies
>>     * Domain specific custom relationships between artifacts
>>     * Ability to group related artifacts in packages
>>     * Automatic, content specific, content validation
>>     * Automatic, content specific, content cataloging
>
> [mm1] Combine content: Automatic content specific content validation 
> and cataloging
>
>>     * Federated queries across multiple registries
>
> [mm1] Combine all query functions: Extensive query support (federated 
> query, parameterized stored queries, custom domain specific discovery, 
> etc.)
>
>>     * Linking artifacts in one registry to artifacts in any other 
>> registry
>
> [mm1] Reword: Linking artifacts across registries
>
>>     * Federated identity management based on SAML 2
>>     * Single Sign On based on SAML 2
>
> [mm1] Combine last two bullets: Federated identity and single sign on 
> support based on SAML v2.0
>
>>     * HTTP Binding to registry protocol
>>     * Extensible API and protocol that allows custom request /
>>       response messages
>
> [mm1] Combine last two bullets: Extensible API and protocol
>
>> There are currently no activities or plans to converge ebXML Registry 
>> 3.0 and UDDI 3.0.
>
> [mm1] Suggest we delete last sentence. Getting any feedback of gaps in 
> R/R that exist in UDDI may be valuable input to the team. Whether we 
> should include here is a team decision. Thanks.