|
<Farrukh>
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.
</Farrukh>
I echo Farrukh's
comments, and emphasize the latter part. I highly respect Farrukh as a person as
well as professionally, and have learned a great deal from him over the years,
and will continue to.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|