Re: Positioning with UDDI (was RE: Tactical Proposal: Split V2 work items into V2 and V3 (repost))

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

I thought that I would get away with an only comment, but I suppose another
is in order.....

The answer lies in firstly obtaining official liaisons between UDDI and
OASIS Registry
that share the vision of a cohesive Reg/Rep environment where value is
added
from both organizations. Once that is established, the options for
positioning, and
the aspects of such (like the one you point out) can be enumerated and
agreed upon.
The White Paper from the ebXML initiative on using UDDI to find ebXML
RegReps
was only a first step that expresses an initial view. I would think a more
comprehensive
viewpoint would the goal.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



"Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> on 08/21/2001 09:06:06
AM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Lisa Carnahan
      <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>
cc:   regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Positioning with UDDI (was RE: Tactical Proposal: Split V2 work i
      tems into V2 and V3 (repost))




Scott,

Scott>>My only comment on this, would be to consider options for any
alignment
with, or work that can be done
collectively, to produce a clear positioning with UDDI before the first TC
Specification post ebXML initiative exit.

I would be interested in knowing the options for a "clear positioning"
with UDDI from those of you who work closely work with UDDI as well as
those of you who are interested in the topic. From my point of view,
"clear positioning" means API level compatibility both ways (UDDI-> ebXML
Registry
and ebXML Registry -> UDDI) that will allow interoperability. Can UDDI
commit
to this as would ebXML Registry? If there is no commitment from both sides,
one spec will end up chasing a moving train with no chance of boarding it
any time!

Best regards,
-Suresh