RE: [regrep] [Action] Please comment on proposed outline for regreppresentation to OGC

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

I agree with Ron and Monica's comments. Downplay the questions regarding
ebRS except as an FYI for us, and focus more on what they are looking
for. Want to be sure to include plenty of time for Q&A, and the ebRS
question could be ours to the OGC team.

Good draft outline Farrukh. Thanks!

Kathryn



Kathryn Breininger
Boeing Library Services
425-965-0182 phone




-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh S. Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:10 PM
To: Ron Lake
Cc: ebXML Regrep
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Action] Please comment on proposed outline for
regreppresentation to OGC

Ron Lake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We agree that ebRS offers additional benefits for RegRep.  Some of 
> these are handled in the OGC World through its own Catalogue 
> interface. I don't think adoption of ebRS is in the cards at the 
> present time and I would not think it useful to pursue that in the 
> presentation except as an aside.
>   

We are on the same page. I realize ebRS is not in the cards now. But
regrep TC would like to ask OGC colleagues on what the issues are that
prevent the use of ebRS so we can address them.

We also want to make sure that we convey what we believe is useful
information for potential future consideration of ebRS by OGC.

> I think the suggested slide deck probably meets the requirements.
>
> OGC Community is being asked to select ebRIM profile of OGC Catalogue 
> (i.e. we use the ebRIM model but the Catalogue search/request/update 
> XML grammar). For some people they think that all they need to be 
> concerned about are traditional GIS catalogue (data set descriptions) 
> and service description and they wonder if RIM is too complex. My view

> is that the complexity is very much warranted and that they are 
> kidding themselves if they think a very light catalogue able to only 
> handle datasets and service descriptions is adequate.  They have 
> already added, for example, the ability to associate services and 
> dataset descriptions (like the tip of iceberg!)
>   
+1

I am reminded of how ws-* proponents felt that ebXML was too complex.
Today, the complexity of the ws-* specs is patently obvious.

It is not unusual to have some level of complexity to have a generic and
extensible spec.
We have tried to minimize it by reusing "a few good primitives" over and
over to solve many different problems.

That said, I also agree that like most specs, regrep spec could be
further simplified in the next version.

This part of the discussion is to gain some insights into areas that OGC
feels could be improved.

Thanks very much for the invitation and for helping us target the
content to what OGC needs.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com