That might be something that belongs in your critique of the suggested
alternative. For me the emphasis is on functionality and not who else is
doing it.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Jeff Bohren |
| | <jbohren@opennetw|
| | ork.com> |
| | |
| | 03/12/2003 07:33 |
| | AM |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: |
| cc: |
| Subject: [provision] Provisioning meta-data... |
| |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
One key issue comparing the current SPML specification to the alternative
proposed by Gerry Woods is issue of provisioning meta-data. The current
specification use a protocol specific means to define the meta-data, where
as the alternative proposal uses XML Schema. I think it would be helpful to
look at different protocols that use each approach as a means of evaluated
the likelihood of success or adoption of each approach.
Some protocols that use protocol specific meta-data mechanisms are:
UDDI
DSML
OMI
ebXML
What are some protocols that use XML Schema to define meta-data (other than
WSDL and SOAP)?
Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
