Farrukh,

I agree with what Scott said in his note. I believe OASIS/ebXML Registry should NOT be a business registry, duplicating the functionality of UDDI, for reasons that Scott has pointed out. The industry does not need two overlapping specifications.

If Sanjay's proposal is intended to facilitate the interoperability and integration of OASOS/ebXML Registry with UDDI, that will be very fine. For example, UDDI manages business definitions, business service interfaces and technical bindings, but it does NOT manage any corresponding specification documents. If Sanjay's proposal deals with these specification documents but NOT business definitions, business service interfaces or technical bindings, that will be very fine.

Regards, Dan

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

Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi To: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS @Sun.COM> cc: "Patil, Sanjay" <SPa...@iona.com>, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, 09/04/01 04:43 "'regr...@lists.oasis-open.org'" PM <regr...@lists.oasis-open.org>, Lisa Carnahan <lisa...@nist.gov> Subject: Re: Proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding

Dan,

This work item was sanctioned early on when we discussed work items for V2.0. We had discussed earlier in a RAWS meeting that we will include this item in the RAWS team as it is related to web services.

I do not believe that our progress should be hindered by what is going on in UDDI. The UDDI team is constantly making changes in each release that duplicates ebXMl functionality. I cannot even discuss specific instances as it is private to the UDDI AG. On the other hand every thing in this TC is open for duplication.

I feel that there is a string need for us to support the capabilities outlined by Sanjay and they fit well with focus on web services in this team. Please, lets focus on the merits of the proposal instead.