Re: [regrep-cooperating] Federated Protocol Profile and FederatedProtocolAgreement

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

Zack,

The idea of storing appropriate metadata regarding a federation in the members
of the federation makes much sense. I am uneasy though about storing it in some
variant of CPP/A for the following reasons:

-Don't want to add a dependency on CPP/A (though I like it a lot)

-CPP/A is repository item. I think the metadata we are talking about should be
first class member of Registry Information Model 3.0 (RIM 3.0).

Note that above is just my initial comment on the suggestion. These ideas will
evolve as we discuss things more. I do not have any pre-conceived ideas at this
stage.

--
Regards,
Farrukh


Zachary Alexander wrote:

> All,
>
> I have always thought that ebXML Registries would operate like LDAP
> Directories. LDAP Directories use Replication Agreements to store the roles
> of each LDAP Directory.  ebXML Federated Registries could use a similar
> concept to store information that defines the relationships between ebXML
> Registries. This at its simplest would define the members in a ebXML
> Federated Registry Arrangement.  More complex relations/profiles could be
> defined later that would include Accounting procedures and/or SLA
> information.
>
> I think that these profiles should be called Federated Protocol Profiles.
> These profiles could be based in part on the Collaboration Protocol Profile.
> They would define the services that each registry would perform. As the
> CPP/A spec and auto-negotiation matures, the FPP and FPA could provide a
> very potent mechanism for managing Federated ebXML Registries.
>
> zack
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>