[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship with other standards
Yes, we have cut that from the submission package - but thanks for the offer to put something together Joe. I believe it would still be worthwhile to do something such as you suggested, and use it in an FAQ or other communications. Kathryn Breininger Boeing Library Services 425-965-0182 phone -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:08 AM To: Chiusano Joseph Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship with other standards Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Thanks Farrukh. I will draft something over the weekend and send. I > will take all perspectives into account (all are valuable), which will > include the perspective of the needs of the US federal space as well > as our TC members, to make sure that all needs are accounted for. Once > submitted, we can vet the exact text within the TC collaboratively. Hi Joe, Maybe you missed it but Kathryn suggested we keep it simple. So I cut out that section for most part. I think we are all set on that deliverable now. Thanks. > > Joe > > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:40 AM > *To:* regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship with > other standards > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> I would like to recommend that we also include information >> regarding how the 2 registry standards can be used together in a >> complementary manner, as described in 2 articles that I had >> published in April 2003 and September 2003 respectively: >> >> http://www.mywebservices.org/index.php/article/articleview/984/1/24/ >> http://www.ebxmlforum.org/articles/ebFor_20030824.html >> >> Speaking for the US federal government space, this type of >> information would be extremely valuable as there is much >> confusion within that space regarding UDDI vs. ebXML Registry >> that can be clarified further by including this type of >> information (i.e. in addition to the information below). Also, >> there is a high probability that in the future the US federal >> government space could see UDDI and ebXML registries interacting >> with one another. >> >> If anyone believes this is not a good idea, please express >> concrete reasons as to why it would not be. > > Thanks for the valuable suggestion Joe. > > Would you like to propose some concrete text that we can consider? > I would suggest keeping it very brief (ideally a couple of sentences) > since we dont want this to become a paper about UDDI and ebXML > Registry. > > As a suggestion I propose the use case where a UDDI registry > references > an artifact in ebXML Registry within its overviewDoc/overViewURL > using the ebXML Registry HTTP binding. > > Rspectfully, the following use cases are ones I feel we MUST NOT > mention and I include my > reasons why below: > > "Using UDDI to find ebXML Registry/Repository" > > This use case implies that one needs UDDI to find an ebXML > Registry and > that somehow ebXML Registry is dependent on UDDI for this. Why cant > an ebXML registry be discovered in another ebXML Registry. More likely > why cant it just get discovered by a google serach. This use case > is not realistic. > I am not aware of any instances of this use case and do not feel > it solves a real > problem. > > "UDDI as the registry for ebXML Components" > > This use case has nothing to do with ebXML Registry - UDDI interop. > So I feel that it has no relevance in this context. > > Thanks again for your valuable comments. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Joe >> >> Joseph Chiusano >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> <http://www.boozallen.com/> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:27 AM >> *To:* regrep@lists.oasis-open.org >> *Subject:* Re: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship >> with other standards >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Here is the revised text based on Monica's excellent >> suggestions for your convenience. I have incorporated almost >> all her suggestions with the exception of thos noted in my >> previous response to her message. Please comment on this >> revised version that follows... >> >> As Kathryn mentioned, in order to submit our specs for OASIS >> standardization process next week we need >> a statement of relationship of our specs with other >> standards. Per my ACTION from previous meetings I am >> providing the draft text below. >> >> Please share comments on this thread. Thanks. >> >> <draft text> >> >> [3.] A statement regarding the relationship of this >> specification to similar work of other OASIS TCs or other >> standards developing organizations. >> >> The OASIS ebXML Registry 3.0 specifications are aligned with >> a variety of other OASIS standards as described below. >> >> * The OASIS Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security >> 1.0 specification is used to provide Message Security >> for the Registry protocol. >> * The OASIS Web Services Security: SOAP Message with >> Attachments (SwA) Profile 1.0 specification is used to >> provide Message Security for SOAP attachments within >> the Registry protocol. >> * The OASIS XACML 1.0 specification is used to define the >> syntax for registry Access Control Policies. >> * The OASIS SAML 2.0 specifications are used to support >> Federated Identity Management and Single Sign On within >> the registry >> >> The OASIS ebXML Registry 3.0 specifications have some >> similarities with the OASIS UDDI 3.0 standard in that both >> specifications define a registry standard. >> Both specifications define a registry that is a web service. >> Both specifications define a registry that may be used as a >> registry for web services. >> The two specifications have been independently developed and >> neither specifications uses the other as a dependency. >> >> Limited similarities exist between the OASIS ebXML Registry >> 3.0 and OASIS UDDI 3.0. >> Both specifications define a registry for web services and a >> registry exposed as a web service. >> No explicit dependencies exist between the two OASIS >> specification efforts. UDDI 3.0 specifies a registry only, >> while ebXML Registry 3.0 specifies both a registry and a >> repository. Other unique and value-added features of OASIS >> ebXML Registry 3.0 include: >> >> * Custom domain specific artifact discovery queries using >> SQL-92 and XML Filter Query syntax >> * Parameterized registry-resident (stored) queries >> * Life cycle management and artifact governance including >> automatic version control >> * Content based event notification using domain specific >> queries >> * User-defined, domain specific, taxonomies >> * Domain specific custom relationships between artifacts >> * Ability to group related artifacts in packages >> * Automatic content specific content validation and >> cataloging >> * Federated queries across multiple registries >> * Linking artifacts across registries >> * Federated identity and single sign on support based on >> SAML v2.0 >> * HTTP Binding to registry protocol >> * Extensible API and protocol >> >> >> </draft text> >> >> BTW, I would like to also include features in UDDI 3.0 that >> are not provided by ebXML Registry 3.0. My reading of the >> UDDI 3.0 specs >> returned no such candidate items. Paul since you are a member >> of UDDI TC could you take an ACTION to provide us with a list >> of UDDI 3.0 features >> that ebXML Registry 3.0 does not support? It would be good to >> state the features in terms of end user relevant >> functionality rather than something like >> "UDDI has tModels and ebXML Registry does not". Thanks in >> advance for your help. >> >> >> >>-- >>Regards, >>Farrukh >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> regrep-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional >> commands, e-mail: regrep-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> > > >-- >Regards, >Farrukh > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: regrep-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: regrep-help@lists.oasis-open.org > -- Regards, Farrukh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: regrep-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: regrep-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]