All you are telling me is where OASIS succeeds with
its TC process.
The individual TCs have, and are providing the
level that CEFACT cannot.
And today the individual TCs are continuing to do
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
Now it would make sense for the Registry to say to
ebXML TCs - we're releasing V3.0 - and here's a
of things we'd like you to make sure interoperate
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
already - what we need is use cases that illustrate
benefits and applicability - and that is definately
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.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:19
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:
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
On 20-Dec-03, at 3:34 PM, David RR Webber
think we are seeing the same thing here - much more real world - centric./smaller>/fontfamily>
not sure the word "Architecture" in the title sends the right message./smaller>/fontfamily>
are overdosed on all that - theory side - stuff - what we need is/smaller>/fontfamily>
pragmatism and showing what can be built and
like "ebXML Solution Configuration" would be my preference./smaller>/fontfamily>
perhaps - "Solution et XML avec ebXML (SEXAE) - sorry, /smaller>/fontfamily>
I have no
idea what came over me then!?! Too much architecture is/smaller>/fontfamily>
not good for you.../smaller>/fontfamily>
Original Message -----/x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
Kathryn R/x-tad-bigger>/color>; /x-tad-bigger>Collins, Jeff/x-tad-bigger>/color> ;/x-tad-bigger>Duane Nickull/x-tad-bigger>/color> ;/x-tad-bigger>Farrukh Najmi/x-tad-bigger>/color> ;/x-tad-bigger>ebXML Regrep
(ebXML Regrep)/x-tad-bigger>/color> /x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
December 20, 2003 9:16 AM/x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
[regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re: [regrep] Meeting
agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December 18th, 2003)/x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
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,
On Dec 19, 2003, at 9:58 PM, David RR Webber
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
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?
think that would be much more productive at this stage - for adopters
implementers of ebXML based solutions.
Original Message -----
From: "Duane Nickull"
To: "Breininger, Kathryn R"
Cc: "Farrukh Najmi"
<email@example.com>; "ebXML Regrep (ebXML
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
To add to Kathryn's
email, I must also express the architectural
The ebXML Technical Architecture team had a responsibility to
user requirements to an architecture that could be implemented
several components. The Service Oriented architecture uses the
Registry as one of its' components to facilitate a set of
requirements described in normative sections of the ebXML TA v
ebXML Registry currently meets all of those functional
plus has started adding in functionality that is needed, yet
specified within the TA 1.04. This is a byproduct of two
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
also needs to include certain web service standards (WSDL and
well as optionally UDDI - the latter being a point for
2. Advances in implementors requirements that are not
part of the ebXML
Requirements document v 1.06. As time changes, so do
of users. The ebXMl Requirements document could be
To rectify this, I am proposing a new ebXML Technical
be established and a new revision of the architecture
be written. I
would also like to suggest that a revision to the ebXML
document be done to update that documents.
also like to see the following for ebXML as a whole:
meetings between all ebXML and relevant WS branded TC's
control over versioning of the specifications and
architecture/versioning scheme that can be implemented. (I am
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
facilitate dynamic discovery of other web service within
4. Implementation profiles and an implementation
(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.
Someone to set up and maintain a production registry as a Registry
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"
Breininger, Kathryn R
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
Registry specs as Content Management Standards. As I stated in
telecon yesterday, I believe our intention (ebXML Registry TC) is
the ebXML Registry specs and standards support and enable
management, not that the ebXML Registry specs become the
Content Management System standards. Generally speaking, a
Management System includes authoring, check-in/check-out,
versioning, etc. An ebXML Registry has broader application in
enabling of ebusiness, federation features, classification
interoperation with other OASIS and ebXML standards, and
services, most of which can compliment a CMS.
to bear in mind our
functionality we add affects our interoperability as well as
requirements for core components, BP, CPPA, etc. There are areas
overlap it is true: an ebXML Registry manages metadata about
registered objects, and a CMS manages metadata as well. However,
ebXML Registry has a larger and slightly different scope and as such
can support and enable content management, but is not a
developed specifically for
From: Farrukh Najmi
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:34
To: Collins, Jeff
Cc: ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)
[regrep] ebXML Registry and Content Management (was Re:
agenda and reminder for ebXML Registry telecon December
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
Until recently I used to say that ebXML Registry spec is weak
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
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
there are those that we keep discovering. At XML 2003 I
Australian company MSI ( http://www.msi.com.au ) had an ebXMl
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
As you know Portals and CM have a close relationship
with portals being
the front end and ECM systems being the
Naturally, I see a close relationship between WSRP as a
and ebXML Registry as CM standard.
we have recently formed a liaison with WSRP TC where
Joe Chiusano and I
work in the Publish/Bind/Discover SC under Alan Kropp
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
ebXML Registry supports tracking of versions today. It
implementation specific extensions to support the missing
in/checkout type functions. Until we support full versioning this
of CM would not be interoperable. Some interop is better than
- How does ebXML interoperate
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?
application is the one that was defined in the ebXML
Architecture as an
eBusiness artifacts registry for CPP/A, BPSS and CC.
application is Web Service publish/discovery. These
deployed at Sun and other places. I would love to see a
publish/bind/discover use case as a reference application.
application for ebXML Registry in my opinion is
Plans for application support or integration from
Portal Vendors or
Apache in something like Cocoon?
freebXML Registry project under freebxml.org is where a grassroots
of vendor and user companies are working together on
How would a vendor achieve benefit
from committing resources to this
any other standards work, a vendor should only get involved if
feel the standard is important to their future. By getting
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
Senior Standards Strategist
To unsubscribe from
this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go
unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
Intelligent Documents Business
Adobe Systems Canada Inc.