OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re: [regrep] Meeting agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December 18th, 2003)

All you are telling me is where OASIS succeeds with its TC process.
The individual TCs have, and are providing the technical implementation
level that CEFACT cannot.
And today the individual TCs are continuing to do that job. 
Those TCs also are liaising together about technical issues and
That's why I moved the OASIS CAM work out of CEFACT into OASIS,
and similarly strongly supported the move of BPSS too.
Now it would make sense for the Registry to say to the other
ebXML TCs - we're releasing V3.0 - and here's a laundry list
of things we'd like you to make sure interoperate between
us - and new features we're adding - and it would also make
sense for OASIS itself to decide to launch a V3.0 of ebXML
and then have the TCs interact to make that all happen.
I think we're both saying we have enough big picture
already - what we need is use cases that illustrate the
benefits and applicability - and that is definately what
I'm after getting to.
I'm just not so sure we want a separate group telling each TC
what they need to be doing instead here.
Cheers, DW.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re: [regrep] Meeting agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December 18th, 2003)


Where I work, Architecture is pretty concrete. Developers actually implement the architecture that is given to them, and if the architecture is not implementable, the architects have to fix it before implementation can start. All this means in the ebXML context is that our quality level has to be higher than the CEFACT process permitted/supported.

The CEFACT idea of Architecture was in line with CEFACT's overall approach -- Top Down from Confused User's Perspective (TD-CUP). In my view, that sort of top down focus should end at the requirements gathering phase, then the technical architects go to work. This parallels successful professional software development patterns:

user->product management->architect->implementer->user

CEFACT promoted an architecture that was driven by the consumer, and unfortunately the architecture was only consumable by the consumer and not the implementer. This is a failing of the CEFACT process and orientation, not of the architecture concept.


On 20-Dec-03, at 3:34 PM, David RR Webber wrote:

I think we are seeing the same thing here - much more real world - centric.
I'm not sure the word "Architecture" in the title sends the right message.
People are overdosed on all that - theory side - stuff - what we need is
healthy pragmatism and showing what can be built and works.
Something like "ebXML Solution Configuration" would be my preference.
p.s. French perhaps - "Solution et XML avec ebXML (SEXAE) - sorry,
I have no idea what came over me then!?!  Too much architecture is
clearly not good for you...
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew MacKenzie
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Breininger, Kathryn R; Collins, Jeff ;Duane Nickull ;Farrukh Najmi ;ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)
Sent:Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject:Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re: [regrep] Meeting agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December 18th, 2003)


I think an ebXML Architecture could be useful if its goal is to define best practices, deployment patterns and general guidance for technical committees. It would be quite helpful if an architecture group could maintain the high level view of our ecosystem, so that interoperability between specifications remains a key goal. United we stand, divided we fall, right?


On Dec 19, 2003, at 9:58 PM, David RR Webber wrote:


You raise some interesting points - and I agree that the old ebXML
architecture document did its job for 1.0 - but I'm not sure that
we necessarily need a new ebXML Architecture specification and team.

Instead - I'm more interested in focusing on best-practices and proven
solution configurations - as we just saw with the CDC pilot for XML2003.

And here in lies the rub - can anyone person/team create an authoritative
Architecture?" Instead - ebXML has advanced to where it can be
used in multiple roles and deployments - and outgrown the original limited
(design time only) thinking - to become a fully fledged set of technology
components - where the key thing is the proven integration and

That's why I'm see at this point - its much more useful for people to know
how to use a suite of OASIS specifications together - like CDC, like
and many more real implementations today are proving.

Perhaps the IIC or the TAB are other possible venues - where such a
sub-team can be initiated - to manage and Q&A such solution sets - and
then publish them as case studies?

I think that would be much more productive at this stage - for adopters
and implementers of ebXML based solutions.

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>
Cc: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; "Collins, Jeff"
<jcollins@vignette.com>; "ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)"
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re:
[regrep] Meeting agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December
18th, 2003)

To add to Kathryn's email, I must also express the architectural
viewpoint from ebXML.

The ebXML Technical Architecture team had a responsibility to map the
user requirements to an architecture that could be implemented using
several components. The Service Oriented architecture uses the ebXML
Registry as one of its' components to facilitate a set of functional
requirements described in normative sections of the ebXML TA v 1.04.
ebXML Registry currently meets all of those functional requirements
plus has started adding in functionality that is needed, yet was never
specified within the TA 1.04. This is a byproduct of two items:

1. The ebXML Technical Architecture v 1.0 is out of date and needs to be
revised and be reconciled with advances made by all ebXML groups and
also needs to include certain web service standards (WSDL and SOAP as
well as optionally UDDI - the latter being a point for discussion).

2. Advances in implementors requirements that are not part of the ebXML
Requirements document v 1.06. As time changes, so do the requirements
of users. The ebXMl Requirements document could be updated too.

To rectify this, I am proposing a new ebXML Technical Architecture team
be established and a new revision of the architecture be written. I
would also like to suggest that a revision to the ebXML Requirements
document be done to update that documents.

I would also like to see the following for ebXML as a whole:

1. Coordinated meetings between all ebXML and relevant WS branded TC's
2. Tighter control over versioning of the specifications and a
architecture/versioning scheme that can be implemented. (I am thinking
that if everyone aims at making version 3.0 the gold / real copy, we can
achieve this based on lessons learned).
3. Integration of Web services standards formally within ebXML (Registry
already has WSDL and SOAP, ebXML MS has SOAP but we can also use UDDI
optionally to facilitate dynamic discovery of other web service within
an ebXML architecture instance.)
4. Implementation profiles and an implementation guide published
(perhaps by IIC?).
5. Inclusion of UBL as a start payload format for ebXML. One thing that
many implementors found annoying was the lack of a specific payload.
While we cannot constrain ebXMl to use only UBL, it may be good to have
it as a starting point.
6. Someone to set up and maintain a production registry as a Registry
Zero, to start the federation.
7. World peace
(The latter one I personally added since I am already asking for so much
and I figured it was best to ask for everything in one go)

I'm sure this will invoke some other opinions. I wouldn't mind moving
this thread to the ebXML Dev list under the title "ebXML Future"

Duane Nickull
Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:

I would like to insert a brief clarification here. In a couple of the
recent e-mails in this string there have been references to ebXML
Registry specs as Content Management Standards. As I stated in our
telecon yesterday, I believe our intention (ebXML Registry TC) is that
the ebXML Registry specs and standards support and enable content
management, not that the ebXML Registry specs become the definitive
Content Management System standards. Generally speaking, a Content
Management System includes authoring, check-in/check-out, workflow,
versioning, etc. An ebXML Registry has broader application in its
enabling of ebusiness, federation features, classification support,
interoperation with other OASIS and ebXML standards, and additional
services, most of which can compliment a CMS.

We need to bear in mind our charter
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/charter.php and how
functionality we add affects our interoperability as well as the
requirements for core components, BP, CPPA, etc. There are areas of
overlap it is true: an ebXML Registry manages metadata about the
registered objects, and a CMS manages metadata as well. However, an
ebXML Registry has a larger and slightly different scope and as such it
can support and enable content management, but is not a standard
developed specifically for CMS.


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:34 PM
To: Collins, Jeff
Cc: ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)
Subject: [regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re:
[regrep] Meeting agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December
18th, 2003)

Collins, Jeff wrote:

Ok, so i guess i'll follow up with a few more questions:

- What industry vendors have agreed to support this spec so far?

I assume by "support" you mean implementors of the ebXML registry (as
opposed to users of ebXML registry)?
Until recently I used to say that ebXML Registry spec is weak on vendor
adoption and strong on end-user adoption.
This changed last month when Adobe acquired Yellow Dragon Software to
leverage their ebXML Registry within their eForms products. Peter, Duane

and Matt represent Adobe on our TC and can give more details.

Sun has an implementation in open source (see my signature).

In addition there are several other implementations listed on our TC


Finally, there are those that we keep discovering. At XML 2003 I
discovered that the
Australian company MSI ( http://www.msi.com.au ) had an ebXMl Registry

But where we are doing even better is in actual end-user adoption and
deployment. Again see the first link in my signature for a small

- Has there been any consideration of Portal Server integration use
cases with the CM API?

As you know Portals and CM have a close relationship with portals being
the front end and ECM systems being the backend.

Naturally, I see a close relationship between WSRP as a portal standard
and ebXML Registry as CM standard.
Recognizing that, we have recently formed a liaison with WSRP TC where
Joe Chiusano and I work in the Publish/Bind/Discover SC under Alan Kropp

of Vignette. Based on initial discussion we feel that ebXMl Registry
brings a strong value to WSRP and portals.

- What would a CM vendor use ebXML for today if it doesn't support
versioning as defined by the CM products on the market today? Would it

be read only?

ebXML Registry supports tracking of versions today. It allows for
implementation specific extensions to support the missing check
in/checkout type functions. Until we support full versioning this aspect

of CM would not be interoperable. Some interop is better than none in
the interim.

- How does ebXML interoperate with WebDAV?

ebXML Registry defines an abstract API in UML and then defines normative

bindings to SOAP, HTML and ebXML Messaging. a binding to WebDav has not
been defined yet. If we see a demand for it we could consider it.

Overall, are there plans for reference ECM applications?

The reference application is the one that was defined in the ebXML
Architecture as an eBusiness artifacts registry for CPP/A, BPSS and CC.
Another reference application is Web Service publish/discovery. These
applications are deployed at Sun and other places. I would love to see a

WSRP publish/bind/discover use case as a reference application.

The killer application for ebXML Registry in my opinion is eForms.

Plans for application support or integration from Portal Vendors or
Apache in something like Cocoon?

The freebXML Registry project under freebxml.org is where a grassroots
group of vendor and user companies are working together on ebXML

How would a vendor achieve benefit from committing resources to this

Like any other standards work, a vendor should only get involved if they

feel the standard is important to their future. By getting involved they

make sure that their customer/product needs are met within the standard
and that they are not stuck with a lot of baggage that they do not wish
to implement in their products.

Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

Matthew MacKenzie
Senior Architect
Intelligent Documents Business Unit
Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
506 869.0175

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]