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

[Lisa Carnahan <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>]

Joel,

Could you please clarify what you mean by " a possible
concept of the Oasis Registry TC accepting UDDI as its "Registry" allowing
the Oasis Registry TC to complete its definition of the Repository
functionality and specification."?  Specifically your use of the terms 
'registry' and 'repository'?  Currently our specs are relatively silent on 
the content in the repository.  In fact, most of our work has been on the 
information model/services that make use of the metadata in a 
registry.  Our specs would be fairly content-free if we focused on the 
repository.  Am I missing something here?

--lisa


At 02:16 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Munter, Joel D wrote:
>reply:
>
>I'd like to highlight the thoughts made by both Scott and Dan earlier in the
>thread.  The original note floated by Sun/IBM bridging ebXML Reg/Rep and
>UDDI was intended to be a starting point.  Dan's suggestions that we should
>look to define ebXML Reg/Rep and UDDI common vs. distinct use cases for
>interoperability have merit.  I'd like to additionally submit a possible
>concept of the Oasis Registry TC accepting UDDI as its "Registry" allowing
>the Oasis Registry TC to complete its definition of the Repository
>functionality and specification.
>
>My point in bringing up the idea this way is to highlight that we probably
>need to establish a separate sub-team, we should brainstorm various
>interoperability alternatives, and do real work on this.
>
>Joel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:56 PM
>To: Lisa Carnahan
>Cc: Scott Hinkelman; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: Positioning with UDDI (was RE: Tactical Proposal: Split V2
>work i tems into V2 and V3 (repost))
>
>
>Message text written by Lisa Carnahan
> >My thought is that
>it is beyond the scope of our TC to define TModels for CPPs, BPs and the
>like.  These should be defined by the appropriate ebXML committee (i.e.,
>the Big UN/CEFACT committee...(the name escapes me)).   What our
>TC  discussed on our conference call was to limit our TModel definitions to
>
>only those that would help ebXML Registries be found and defined in a
>consistent manner.<
>
>Lisa,
>
>That seems to me to be probably the last we see of it!
>
>Not wanting to rain on the UDDI parade - I would offer -
>that since we have the TModel expertise - (a fact that will probably
>not go un-noticed when we try and punt to these other groups...)
>
>we should instead do drafts here of what we see these all should
>be - and then submit them to these other guys to pour holy-water on them.
>
>Not to mention that we can probably make a good case for setting
>TModels guidelines with registry for content as a task in our domain.
>
>Just trying to push the peanut a little more effectively!  I know - I
>really
>don;t want to do the TModels either - but the thought of it disappearing
>off - to reappear sometime later - and then not aligned to our thinking -
>worries me more than the comparitively small amount of work to
>get us a sound base here...
>
>Thanks, DW.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>