Hi all,
I have a couple of non-pc observations:
|
| Let's address any perceived deficiencies in UDDI first before we
attempt to
| change aspects of the Oasis Registry candidate specifications to "come
up to
| the capabilities" that already exist in UDDI. We have several ways
of
| requesting changes to the UDDI specifications, 1) through UDDI-WG
member
| contributions; 2) through UDDI-AG member contributions 3) through
public
| lists; and 4) through the UDDI liaison role.
|
<KS>
This OASIS TC not a UDDI TC. Last time I checked, I didn't see the charter
as "address perceived deficiencies in UDDI". That is work of the UDDI
groups. IMHO, this TC, shouldn't be wasting cycles influencing UDDI, as a
group. I am sure individual members who are in both forums (including
myself) are doing that, anyway .
Second, one should look at a feature as to whether it makes sense for an
OASIS Registry. One should not add features because UDDI has it or refrain
from adding a feature because UDDI has that feature. The comparison is
irrelevant. I do not see duplication of features as a cause for concern.
<soapbox>
We should have a vision for the OASIS registry and should add features
according to that vision.
</soapbox>
Another point re the feature set is Scott's view of "without significant
signs of industry traction." IMHO, this is irrelevant as well. If a feature
makes sense, include it. None of us have a clear crystal ball to predict the
future :o( and adoptability and adaptability.
I thought there is a sub-group which was going to *position* and
rationalize OASIS registry with UDDI. What is the recommendation of that
group ? Possibly this sub-group could shape the OASIS Registry vision.
</KS>
cheers
