[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] "ebXML Registry and Web services" Federal Pilot
<Quote> On Monday we participated in a Web Services demo for that group and demonstrated the use of the ebXMLrr with PDF/XML documents for the eGrants schema and using SOAP to connect to Web Services. The demo received a very positive response and we have received multiple requests for further presentations of the demo with other agencies. </Quote> I second Peter's sentiments. I was present at the meeting yesterday - it was an "Assessment of Readiness of XML Web Services for E-Gov Initiatives" - and was highly impressed by Adobe's presentation of e-forms and ebXML Registry. The basic intent of the meeting was a "checkpoint" with a select audience (it was invitation-only) of the current/future state of Web services within the federal government. In addition to some great demo's, we also had some great discussions. Joe Peter Kacandes wrote: > > I would very much second the idea of the pilot and particularly a > demonstration of federation between multiple registries. > > On Monday we participated in a Web Services demo for that group and > demonstrated the use of the ebXMLrr with PDF/XML documents for the eGrants > schema and using SOAP to connect to Web Services. > > The demo received a very positive response and we have received multiple > requests for further presentations of the demo with other agencies. > > Going forward we would be happy to work with others to demonstrate more > advanced use of the registry such as federation etc. > > cheers > > pk > > -----Original Message----- > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh.najmi@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:13 AM > To: Duane Nickull > Cc: Breininger, Kathryn R; Chiusano Joseph; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org; > Karl F Best (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [regrep] "ebXML Registry and Web services" Federal Pilot > > Duane Nickull wrote: > > > I completely disagree with Kathryns' statement. .... > > Duane, As my son says to me when I yell at him: "Take it easy big guy" ;-) > > It is clear that Kathryn's statement was only in the context of any > official TC sponsored activity and not the pilot that Joe suggested. > > > > > I would argue against using the ebXMLrr for a few reasons .... > > I make it a point to never place ebxmlrr in a competitive posture with > any commercial ebXML Vendor and I definitely do not bad-mouth any > commercial offering. Your speaking negatively on ebxmlrr would not be > productive for our common goals. I will not bother defending against > your assertions. > > > > > > > Idea: > > > > Yellow Dragon Software would like its' registry product considered for > > this project too. Is there any reason why we cannot use two (or > > more?) registries and show them pointing at registry objects in each > > others domain? (Like a test case for federation) > > If it is going to be one and one only registry, then let's chose > > wisely based on a registry that meets the set of requirements for the > > pilot, not an abitrary choice based on the fact that their is a > > non-commercial interest. The Messaging team contents with > > interoperability demos between 10 or more commercial products. They > > don't appear to be playing favourites. UDDI is the same with multiple > > vendors. Even ebXML did PoC's with several vendors - no problem. > > > > Let's see the list of requirements for the PoC , then decide. That is > > the way any project should proceed IMHO. > > This is a good idea and leads to something I am sure Mike Kass would > approve and that I have long wanted to propose getting (re)started. We > need to develope a Conformance Test Specification within the TC. NIST > did an initial document, ebxmlrr tested that documents tests, automated > them in ebxmlrr and provided full feedback to NIST. That work has been > dormant and needs someone to take ownership of (hint hint Mike). I > propose we create a conformance sub-team and begin this work rights > away. Once a spec is available we can work with the IIC (I believe Mike > Kass is already our liasion with IIC) to get them focused on registry > interops. > > > > > > > Duane Nickull > > > > Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: > > > >> About the pilot project - it would probably be best to try to use an > >> open source implementation. As a Standards TC, we have to be very > >> careful about not appearing to endorse a particular vendor product. > >> > >> > > > > -- > Farrukh > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup. > php > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]