FW: [regrep] RE: [uddi-spec] ebXML Registry / UDDI Convergence

["Portillo, Christina" <christina.portillo@boeing.com>]

Posted for Duane

	Christina Portillo
	Advanced Computing Technologist
	Data Management Services - Architecture & eBusiness
	The Boeing Company               Phone: 206-544-7474
	PO Box 3707   M/S 2R-91        Fax:     206- 544-5889
	Seattle, WA  98124-2207                christina.portillo@boeing.com
	-----------------------
	xml.web.boeing.com
	xml.ca.boeing.com
	ebusiness on the web = XML + JAVA + Web + Controlled Vocabularies


-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Portillo, Christina
Cc: Breininger, Kathryn R; 'bellwood@us.ibm.com';
'lclement@microsoft.com'; 'mmealling@verisignlabs.com'
Subject: Re: [regrep] RE: [uddi-spec] ebXML Registry / UDDI Convergence



Can someone please post the following to the UDDI list?  Thanks

My original message is posted below.  The most significant argument for
convergence, IMHO, is the fact that end users like Boeing are saying "We
want this".  There are many opinions about how the rest of the standards
will eventually be put together, but we all seem to agree on the basic
architectural principal of an event based architecture using a registry
as a key discvery piece.  Since we are here (in the standards bodies) to
fullfill the needs of the end users,  I am in favour of convergence
where possible now.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [regrep] RE: [uddi-spec] ebXML Registry / UDDI Convergence
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:30 -0700
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
To: Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>
CC: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org, regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
References: <5E52BB26-D225-11D6-B6B8-00039366D620@xmlglobal.com>

Here is my $0.02 worth.

I feel that it is necessary that the two converge (* qualified statement
- read below).  A single registry methodology for B2B and A2A is akin to
a single DNS resolving methodology for the internet.

I also feel that the main barrier to this will not be technical in
nature, it will be political.  A lot of people have done a lot of
*really* great work in UDDI and eXML specs.  The whole issue of "You
merge into us" vs. "We merge into you" is likely to emerge as a
contentious issue.

I urge everyone to take 5 minutes,  appreciate all the work that has
gone into each of the different specs, then ask yourself "Does it really
serve the end user to have two different registry specifications?".  If
we can go forward and assess this on a purely intellectual level, I feel
that most will respond "no" and agree that gradually converging the two
standards into a new standard that can perform all the functionality of
both registries is in the best interest of the end users.  I mention the
"end user" becuase that is who we ultimately are working for.  

This would take the world one step closer to true B2B and A2A
interoperability, reglardless of whether you build WS* or ebXML
 related functionality higher up the stack.

However, that's just the ramblings of this Canadian.

;-)

Duane Nickull  
-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/