Re: [regrep] RE: Updated ROWS proposal ...

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

David,

Thank you for your note but it came too late. I am not a TC member any
more, so I will refrain from commenting.

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


                                                                                                          
                    David RR                                                                              
                    Webber -             To:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS                         
                    XMLGlobal            cc:     "Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>, Oasis        
                    <Gnosis_@compu        Registry TC <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>                       
                    serve.com>           Subject:     Re: [regrep] RE: Updated ROWS proposal ...          
                                                                                                          
                    11/05/01 09:19                                                                        
                    AM                                                                                    
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          



Message text written by Dan Chang
>
Joel,

I agree with your objections to this proposal. It is strange and
non-uniform to make ebXML Registry a general purpose registry AND a
business service registry.

I am also deeply concerned that this proposal explicitly
duplicates/overlaps UDDI functionality. I believe the industry is better
served with a single set of complementary and consistent specifications
rather than with multiple specifications having duplicate/overlapping
functionality.

Regards,  Dan<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dan,

The two teams are focused on different peices (or should be).

Problem is - we've not actually demarced this - or set in place
a true collaboration committee or working mechanisms.

We asked for this six months ago, we asked for it a year ago
when UDDI was launched.

If you don;t build a bridge, then two towns will develop on
separate sides of the river.

Its a classic situation.

It would be excellent if IBM could lead a go forward plan here,
but I'm not sure there is any incentive to do this right now.

It appears to me there are now lukewarm bridge building
analysis in place - which states the cost of building the
bridge is not worth the returns or benefits and would
take resources away from building other more needed
pieces in the short-term.

All makes sense to me.   But I expect these metrics could
change soon - so be prepared to re-assess when they
do.

Thanks, DW.