[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It would seem to me that such a registry should
be part of the metadata of a site (see Tim Bray's
recent contribution to TAG on sites) and not a
separate database as such. That way interoperation
falls out of the standard web architecture and
possibly, the semantic web. I contend that such
a registry, particularly for government systems,
will require related assertions with regards to
the responsibilities of the registrar.
len
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
<Quote>
There is still the trouble associated to the centralized
aspect of such a database, but that can be minimized by sharing
openly the content of the database and allowing free mirroring of
the information herein.
That may actually be useful,
</Quote>
Absolutely. I am not a proponent (and never have been) of the "single
central authority" approach to data management (or whatever term you'd
like to use). I can definitively tell you that the Federal government
"mindset" (at least in my opinion and experience) is that a series of
such databases (registries for our discussion purposes) that are
interoperable to the point where they can exchange information (perhaps
for replication purposes), and query one another in a uniform manner is
a *very* good thing. For example, government agency X could have its
own registry that is used to maintain its own XML artifacts;
additionally, it is able to communicate (directly or through a gateway)
with the registries of other government agencies (assuming proper
security policies and mechanisms, etc.). Topology could be peer-to-peer
topology, hierarchical, hub-and-spoke, or some other topology.
|
