RE: ROWS Proposal: please send your recommendation by email

[Dan Chang <dtchang@us.ibm.com>]

Krishna,

I think Joel, as our liaison to UDDI, is the "sub-group" that you referred
to in your last paragraph.

Regards,  Dan

Metadata Management Technology and Standard
IBM DBTI for e-Business
Notes:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Internet:  dtchang@us.ibm.com
VM:          IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
Phone:    (408)-463-2319


                                                                                                       
                    Krishna Sankar                                                                     
                    <ksankar@cisco       To:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "'Farrukh Najmi'"   
                    .com>                 <Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com>                                      
                                         cc:     Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Munter, Joel D"    
                    09/26/01 02:58        <joel.d.munter@intel.com>, "'Lisa Carnahan'"                 
                    PM                    <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>, Tom Glover/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,      
                                          regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org                             
                                         Subject:     RE: ROWS Proposal: please send your              
                                          recommendation by email                                      
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       



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


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>