[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] [Draft] Statement of relationship with other standards
Got it - thanks! Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:08 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 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]