[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: ROWS Proposal: please send your recommendation by email
Krishna, I think Joel, as our liaison to UDDI, is the "sub-group" that you referred to in your last paragraph. Regards, Dan Metadata Management Technology and Standard IBM DBTI for e-Business Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco To: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "'Farrukh Najmi'" .com> <Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com> cc: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Munter, Joel D" 09/26/01 02:58 <joel.d.munter@intel.com>, "'Lisa Carnahan'" PM <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>, Tom Glover/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: ROWS Proposal: please send your recommendation by email Hi all, I have a couple of non-pc observations: | | Let's address any perceived deficiencies in UDDI first before we attempt to | change aspects of the Oasis Registry candidate specifications to "come up to | the capabilities" that already exist in UDDI. We have several ways of | requesting changes to the UDDI specifications, 1) through UDDI-WG member | contributions; 2) through UDDI-AG member contributions 3) through public | lists; and 4) through the UDDI liaison role. | <KS> This OASIS TC not a UDDI TC. Last time I checked, I didn't see the charter as "address perceived deficiencies in UDDI". That is work of the UDDI groups. IMHO, this TC, shouldn't be wasting cycles influencing UDDI, as a group. I am sure individual members who are in both forums (including myself) are doing that, anyway . Second, one should look at a feature as to whether it makes sense for an OASIS Registry. One should not add features because UDDI has it or refrain from adding a feature because UDDI has that feature. The comparison is irrelevant. I do not see duplication of features as a cause for concern. <soapbox> We should have a vision for the OASIS registry and should add features according to that vision. </soapbox> Another point re the feature set is Scott's view of "without significant signs of industry traction." IMHO, this is irrelevant as well. If a feature makes sense, include it. None of us have a clear crystal ball to predict the future :o( and adoptability and adaptability. I thought there is a sub-group which was going to *position* and rationalize OASIS registry with UDDI. What is the recommendation of that group ? Possibly this sub-group could shape the OASIS Registry vision. </KS> cheers ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC