FW: ebxml jc 4/11/2006: Intuitive Comments re: Registry Profiles and UserTemplates

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>]

The ebBP TC had a discussion at their telecon today regarding the future
need for an ebBP profile for Registry. They brought up a number of
interesting points.  Please take a look at the summary below provided by
Monica.  I would like to bring this up for discussion at our next
telecon on April 27th.

Thanks,
Kathryn





-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:15 PM
To: 'ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org'; Breininger, Kathryn R; Farrukh
Najmi; Brown, George W; Sally St. Amand; Jacques Durand
Subject: ebxml jc 4/11/2006: Intuitive Comments re: Registry Profiles
and UserTemplates

Kathryn and Farrukh (and ebxml-jc),
The ebBP TC had a very lucrative discussion today regarding the ebXML
IIC templates and the near-term future need for an ebBP profile for
Registry.  I've grasped some of the salient details because it raises
two questions:

    * The ebxml-jc may be the venue to discuss template and profile
      compatibility or alignment (see summary below).
    * The importance of this is grounded in engaging end user
      communities so they understand what/how their use cases could be
      modeled in the Registry.

This discussion arose quite naively in the ebBP call today when Dale
Moberg asked how these IIC deployment templates relate to an ebXML
Registry profile for any given specification or function. This arose
during our discussion about the development of our ebBP deployment
template.  The summary of the discussion is:

    * Registry profiles are normative, specific (more granular), and
      primarly targeted to developers. It promotes a standard profile
      interface. The ebXML IIC templates for each specification are
      focused on deployment and more general purpose (i.e. closer to
      user guides).
    * A relationship is important between the two. Alignment is needed
      to encourage end users to make decisions (particularly to develop
      ebBP). This becomes increasingly important for alignment of
      Registry with deployment considerations (so consumers can
      understand what key aspects of their use cases map to how they are
      potentially applied using associations, slots, classifications,
      etc. in the Registry).
    * The template, for example, could be used to develop a Registry
      profile that allows managing and discovering ebBP artifacts. 
      Template preferences and details could be correlated to options
      with search criteria developed using Registry capabilities and
      further described in a profile. 
    * It is also architecturally important. For example, ebSOA is
      considering visibility functions (such as context and content). 
      Correspondingly, UN/CEFACT has categories of systems for search
      and discovery (such as Common Business Process Catalog).

The team felt this was a discussion item for the ebxml-jc as it is
relevant to engaging user communities - so they get their hands around
the benefits of and technology available for these key functions. This
is also an exercise for ebBP as these two aspects are important
individually and particularly in tandem. As asked, I will bring this up
on the ebxml-jc agenda or Kathryn I ask that you do so (as I hand over
the baton).

Thanks.

Some of this mirrors what Pim vanderEijk said too.  As asked by the TC,
I am cc: the ebxml-jc so we can further discuss.