Proposed Infrastructure SC

[Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>]

>Subject: RE: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC
>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:54:59 +0100
>From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
>
>[My e-mails to the list seem to bounce, I don't know if that is because
>I have observer status, and observers aren't meant to participate?? - if
>someone could forward this to the e-gov list I'd appreciate it]
>
>I think a requirements would be a very good step. The process I've
>observed on other OASIS TC's is that any suggestion needs to be backed
>up by real Use cases before any development work is done so as to avoid
>the development of interesting and clever but totally unneeded
>technologies.
>
> From a requirements document, I would suggest the next steps would be to
>abstract the registries functionality such that it can be part of the
>infrastructure and then look towards best practice guides on how
>particular technologies (UDDI, ebXML, ISO11179 etc.) can be used to meet
>the requirements and realise the abstraction.
>
>Matthew Dovey
>Oxford University
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@yellowdragonsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:58 PM
> > To: Matthew Dovey
> > Cc: echristi@usgs.gov; Robert Greeves; egov@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > Just to clarify - I am a *huge* fan of not re-inventing
> > stuff.  In no way should we devise YARS (Yet another Registry
> > Scheme).  OASIS already has one more than they probably need
> > (no flames please on which one is better ;-)
> >
> > The intent of my post was to convey my own experiences that a
> > Best practices/implementation guide of existing registries
> > would help eGov.
> >  Same with Architecture.  If we do an architecture, it should
> > possibly be on adapting an existing architecture such as
> > ebXML or WSA to eGov.
> >
> > What would also be nice is a requirements document. Perhaps
> > some of the Gov folks can steer the next actions for this
> > group based on what is needed.  I am also a huge fan of
> > technology being driven by real world needs.  The last thing
> > we all need to do is to develop new technology that will sit
> > on a shelf becuase no one actually needs it.
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> >
> > Matthew Dovey wrote:
> >
> > >There is a wealth of activity on metadata registries ranging
> > from ISO 11179 Schema registries to technotes on how to use
> > UDDI and ebXML in this context. I may be misinterpreting the
> > remit of this SC and this TC (having only recently joined as
> > an observer) but I would have thought that an overview of
> > these technologies plus perhaps best practice/recommendations
> > on implementing these technologies would be useful. However,
> > the SC should not invent yet another new technology/approach
> > where ones already exist (but I don't think that is the intent).
> > >
> > >Matthew Dovey
> > >Oxford University
> > >_____________Original message ____________
> > >Subject:     Re: [egov] Proposed Infrastructure SC
> > >Sender:      Robert Greeves <GREEVESR@OJP.USDOJ.GOV>
> > >Date:                Fri,  4 Apr 2003 03:49:10 +0100
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > These are issues that are very important to what we are currently
> > > pursuing in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
> > > However, my concern is whether they (a) belong in the
> > Infrastructure
> > > Working Group and/or (b) whether they even belong in this
> > TC? Aren't
> > > there other TC's focusing on this type of capability?
> > >
> > >
> > **********************************************************************
> > > *****
> > >
> > > >>> Duane Nickull <duane@yellowdragonsoft.com> 04/02/03 01:02PM >>>
> > > I would propose one deliverable be an implementation/best practices
> > > guide for Governments to implement a metadata Registry for
> > publishing
> > > and subsequent discovery of key metadata.  My past experience with
> > > government registries has been very enlightening and I can
> > see a clear
> > > value in delivering such a proposal.  I woudl also argue
> > that this may
> > > be a good first deliverable due to the amount of current
> > interest in
> > > establishing a Registry centric concept of operations for many
> > > governments.
> > >
> > > I can flesh this idea out further if there is interest.  Can we
> > > solicit comments from the governments participating on this list?
> > > Please give this idea a sanity check ;-)
> > >
> > > If it goes ahead,  I would volunteer to get this started.
> > >
> > > The other candidate may be an architecture for using
> > Registries within
> > > eGovernment to help guide implementations.  As opposed to a
> > technical
> > > architecture,  this could be a reference architecture.
> > >
> > > Duane Nickull
> > >