Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) wrote:
Joe,
Excellent article at
http://www.ebxmlforum.net/articles/ebFor_20030824.html
It would seem that you, Cory, Andrew,
Farrukh and Rex have positions (regarding registry and repository) that
are
very close and saying (for various good reasons) that ebXML should
interoperate
with UDDI because it can and because of the previous market adoption of
UDDI. You are also saying (I conjecture) that there is no other
“registry/data definition” standard that needs to be
considered?
....
Is this fair and proper to
say? Do all concur?
Hi Paul,
I suspect that what I am about to say is not all that critical to our
demo but...
I wanted to offer a clarification on my position on interop between
UDDI and ebXML Registry since it is not quite what is in this paper:
http://www.ebxmlforum.net/articles/ebFor_20030824.html
First interop of any kind is a "good thing (TM)". That said, I feel
that organizations SHOULD NOT deploy both a UDDI and an ebXML Registry
if they can help it. Instead they should deploy a single registry that:
a) Only supports ebXML Registry standard, or
b) Support ebXML Registry standard at its core and offers a UDDI
interface as an option to the native ebXML Registry
The reason is that managing two registries and two registry standards,
is architecturally messy, costly and more importantly, unnecessary.
The one reason I can think of for an organization to have 2 kinds of
registries is that they have a legacy UDDI registry that is in
production use but is not enough to meet their requirements and they
are therefor transitioning to an ebXML Registry and need to have both
for an interim period until the legacy UDDI registry can be retired.
In summary, I understand the need for two kinds of registries and
limited interop between them for legacy reasons. I do not advice that
as an architecture that is consciously planned and designed. Also, for
the record I want to predict that heterogeneous federation of UDDI and
ebXML Registry's is never likely to happen, as described in the paper.
So respectfully, and for the record, I must say that while Joe and I
have many years of fruitful collaboration on many fronts, much of the
"UDDI and ebXML Registries: Three-Tier Vision" is not a vision that I
have *ever* shared. Joe and I have remained good friends and colleagues
despite the difference of opinion over this paper.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
|
farrukh.najmi.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (01)
|