Diego Ballve wrote:
>Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
>
>
>>The graphic in the ppt may not be representing the whole picture as well
>>as it should. The references to services in the diagram may imply to
>>folks that the registry is only for registering services, missing the
>>rich capability to register any type of asset, including services.
>>Perhaps we should use a higher level graphic? Would it be better to use
>>Figure 1 from the RS, which shows a simplified view of ebXML Registry
>>architecture?
>>
>>
>
>I don't think so. We already describe the parts (as features) in slide
>4. Given the limited number of slides, I find a picture telling "what is
>it for" more appealing than "how is it organized". I think if the
>audience gets interested in the business value of regrep they will
>search and find more about the architecture.
>
>
+1
The registry does the following 3 core things for any type of artifact:
-Publish
-Governance / Management
-Discovery
Here are some end user use cases that we should try and capture in the
picture:
-Web Service Artifcats (WSDL, XML Schema) Publish, Governance and Discovery
-ebXML Core Components Publish, Governance and Discovery
-WSRP Artifacts (Portlet and Producer Services Descriptions) Publish,
Governance and Discovery
-Publish, Governance and Discovery of eForms and their data
-Operational data store for web services (run time usage by a web
service to store/discover its application specific content)
Now if the picture could show the above artifacts in the registry and
arrows from those artifacts to a box showing the use case that would be
good.
For example, one could show a Core Component Assembly tool as a box and
show it connected to a CC box inside registry. Hope this gets the idea
across. Diego, is this what you had in mind?
--
Regards,
Farrukh
