Re: [egov] eGov infrastructure requirements discussion

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

(Folks forgive me for the subject change. This is a great discussion but 
I feel that the previous subject "UN XML project gains Microsoft 
support" was quite inappropriate and misleading. FWIW I talked to folks 
in UNeDoc about that announcement and they were quite amused and 
surprised to read it. They are very much interested in building their 
solutions on open standards).

My actual comments are inline below.

Duane Nickull wrote:

>
>
> David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
>
>> As you create CAM templates - say a UBL OP70, or an OAG BOD part 
>> order equivalent, then you store them in the registry.
>>
> [DN] that is fine - this isi what the registry is supposed to do and 
> can do whuite well. 

+1 publish/discovery of arbitrary content and standardized metadata is 
the core function of the registry

>
>
>>   Now - someone wanting
>> to use one of these - may request it from the registry,
>> and then invoke CAM as a service to check the syntax
>> and structure of a local transaction sample they have,
>> and get a report on the compliance.  Martin Roberts
>> demo'd this behaviour in London with his prototype.
>>
> Hmmm.  This is not actually a function of registry.  What you describe 
> is useful however. IMHO - this functionality belongs in an external 
> application.  :et's keepp the registry scoped to its' intended purpose 
> and allow it to do that purpose well. 

Actually, if you view a registry as a general purpose content management 
system (this is how ebXML Registry has evolved - details available if 
needed), then semantic validation (not schema based syntax validation)  
is  a feature of such a system. An ebXML Registry for example can 
perform content specific  semantic validation of arbitrary content  
using its plug-in based content validation feature. 

Such validation could be done on client side but in general an 
automated  server side validation is a much better solution to meet the 
requirements. The way this works in ebXML Registry is:

-A responsible organization that defines a new type of content publishes 
a content validation service to the registry. Such a service is a simple 
web service conforming to a normative interface. For example the ebXML 
CPPA team may publish a CPP validation service .

- a use submits content that is an instance of a content type (e.g. 
ebXML CPP).

-The registry checks if there is a validation service registered for 
that content type.

-If a validation service exists then registry invokes it automatically 
and validates the content.

-If the content is valid accoding to teh validation service then it is 
accepted by the registry. If not valid then it is rejected with an 
appropriate error message.

Above feature of ebXML Registry makes me wonder why one would need any 
validation requirements to be met on the client side.


>
>
>> Basically, CAM becomes a API extension of the
>> registry - and you can invoke it with various parameter
>> sets - depending on what behaviour you need.
>>
> [DN] The current Registry API can facilitate lifecycle management. 
> Adding a custom API to invoke methods on Registry objects creates a 
> problem by then making the registry become something other than a 
> meta-object facility. 

+1 If there are requirements not being met by the registry API then this 
should be raised as an issue in the registry TC.

>
>
> I see a clear need for this functionality.  The idea for a 
> "schema-express" type application that could assemble the final 
> payload metadata based on a users requirement would be useful for UBL 
> and other component based taxonomies. 

There is a feature similar to content validation in ebXML Registry 
called content cataloging. This feaure automatically generates metadata 
from content using a plugable content specific content cataloging 
service. Would that be applicable to above need?

>
>
>> You could also use CAM to check content before its
>> accepted into the registry and report any descrepencies.
>>
> [DN] IMO that again is outside the scope of a registry, although this 
> functionality is clearly needed.  I have become a big fan of breaking 
> large problems into several smaller ones and solving those one at a time. 

Again content validation is very much in scope for the registry if you 
view it as a general puprpose content management system.

>
>
>>> From an eGov point of view - once you have this 
>>
>> facility you can purpose this to create many business mechanisms 
>> above it - that are useful
>> for discreet implementation configurations.
>>
> [DN] I favour keeping the registry scoped as is.  Once we get a few of 
> these implemented, others can start populating them then developers 
> can build this "edge" functionality around registry services.  

If a registry supports the ability for user-defined modules to be 
plugged in to do content validation and cataloging then the registry can 
manage such edge functionality in sync with teh life cycle events for 
registry content. This is exactly how the ebXML Registry works. It is 
designed with the generic ability to invoke the appropriate user-defined 
plugin at the right time. IT is up to the users to define the right plugin.

> Mapping the set of requirements CAM has back to the RSS and RIM will 
> be an important excesire to make sure we have everything needed for 
> these next layers. 

+1 on any requirements driven approach that is technology neutral at its 
onset. I believe this is what Monica said in her recent message.



-- 
Farrukh