[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec-comment] Public Comment
Actually, Karthick is correct. You cannot define a multi-nesting hierarchy
of categories using UDDI v3. Also note that the keyName is insignificant
except when using the "uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords" category. For other
categories, the keyName doesn't need to be unique, it may be omitted, and if
used, is purely for human legibility. The significant "name" is the
tModelkey.
Although Rajesh's example isn't quite accurate (because the keyName is
insignificant), I concur with Rajesh that it's better to use a defined
tModel rather than nesting the "uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords" category
inside a defined tModel.
I'm not convinced that Karthick's taxonomy requires true nesting to work,
though. I would recommend modeling the categorization as follows:
<categoryBag>
<keyedReferenceGroup
tModelKey="uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing">
<keyedReference
tModelKey="uddi:
biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing:class"
keyName="Class Name"
keyValue="Mammalia"/>
<keyedReference
tModelKey="uddi:
biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing:order"
keyName="Order Name"
keyValue="Astiodactyla"/>
<keyedReference
tModelKey="uddi:
biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing:family"
keyName="Family Name"
keyValue="Bovidea"/>
<keyedReference
tModelKey="uddi:
biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing:subfamily"
keyName="SubFamily Name"
keyValue="Bovinea"/>
</keyedReferenceGroup>
</categoryBag>
Anne
On 3/21/06, Rajesh Koilpillai <rajesh@infravio.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Karthick,
>
>
>
> You don't need to do the nested representation. In your case, the
> categoryBag can be represented as given below, for classifying an UDDI
> entity (e.g. businessEntity or service) by a category named 'Bovinea'.
>
> .
>
> <categoryBag>
>
> <keyedReference
> tModelKey="uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing_class"
>
> keyName="SubFamily Name"
>
> keyValue="Bovinea"/>
>
> </categoryBag>
>
> .
>
>
>
> Note: In the above example keyValue is supposed to be unique and the
> underlying registry figures out the category based on the keyValue.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Rajesh Koilpillai
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Karthick Sankarachary [mailto:karthick.sankarachary@webmethods.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:06 PM
> To: Rajesh@infravio.com; uddi-spec-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec-comment] Public Comment
>
>
>
> Hi Rahesh,
>
> Thanks for that quick response!
>
>
>
> However, judging by the description in section F.2 of UDDI v3.0.2, or
> least
> going by its use cases, it's not immediately clear if I can do this (to
> represent the taxonomy in question):
>
>
>
>
> <categoryBag>
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup
>
> tModelKey=
>
> "uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing_class">
>
> <keyedReference
>
> tModelKey="uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords"
>
> keyName="Class Name"
>
> keyValue="Mammalia"/>
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup
>
> tModelKey=
>
> "uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing_order">
>
> <keyedReference
>
> tModelKey="uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords"
>
> keyName="Order Name"
>
> keyValue="Astiodactyla"/>
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup
>
> tModelKey=
>
> "uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing_family
> ">
>
> <keyedReference
>
> tModelKey="uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords"
>
> keyName="Family Name"
>
> keyValue="Bovidea"/>
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup
>
> tModelKey=
>
>
> "uddi:biology.org:categorizationgroup:living_thing_subfamily">
>
> <keyedReference
>
> tModelKey="uddi:uddi-org:general_keywords"
>
> keyName="SubFamily Name"
>
> keyValue="Bovinea"/>
>
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
> </categoryBag>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Karthick Sankarachary
> Lead Software Engineer
>
> P +91 80 5125 8908 | F +91 80 5125 8901
> <http://www.webmethods.com/> www.webMethods.com
>
> _____
>
> From: Rajesh Koilpillai [mailto:rajesh@infravio.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: ksankara@webmethods.com; uddi-spec-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec-comment] Public Comment
>
>
>
> Hi Karthick,
>
>
>
> It is possible to define a hierarchy of categories for a user-defined
> taxonomy, kindly check section F.2 Grouping Categories in the UDDI v3.0.2
> specification which talks about how categories are represented within a
> keyedReferenceGroup.
>
>
>
> keyedReferenceGroup provides a logical grouping for the keyedReferences
> defined within them.
>
> The tModelKey within a keyedReference uniquely identifies the taxonomy.
>
> The keyName within a keyedReference uniquely identifies the category name.
>
> The keyValue within a keyedReference uniquely identifies the category
> value.
>
>
>
> So as for as inquiry is concerned the current representation works fine.
>
>
>
> But there is no standard representation for defining taxonomy with a
> hierarchy of categories currently in the specification. But each registry
> vendor provides a custom mechanism to populate user defined taxonomies
> with
> a hierarchy of categories. We don't think there is a necessity to modify
> the
> schema for keyedReferences as this is applicable only for inquiry and is
> not
> relevant during taxonomy creation.
>
>
>
> Hope it's clear.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Rajesh Koilpillai
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:52 AM
> To: uddi-spec-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [uddi-spec-comment] Public Comment
>
>
>
> Comment from: ksankara@webmethods.com
>
>
>
> Name: Karthick Sankarachary
>
>
>
> Title: Lead Engineer
>
>
>
> Organization: webMethods, Inc.
>
>
>
> Regarding Specification: UDDI V3.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the looks of the latest specification, it
> is
> not possible to define a hierarchy of categories, or to be more precise, a
> taxonomy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I can't really use derived categories to represent a hierarchy, because
> by
> definition, the categories in a taxonomy may and will be unrelated to each
> other.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To illustrate my use case, please take a look see at the taxonomy at
> http://www.rarespecies.org.na/InfoSys/IMAGES/buffalo/Taxonomy.gif.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think our best bet is keyedRefereceGroup. Unfortunately, it is not
> recursive and only allows for one level of nesting of categories, by
> virtue
> of the fact that a keyedReferenceGroup cannot contain another
> keyedReferenceGroup.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, that begs the question, would it at all be possible to change the type
> of keyedReferenceGroup like so:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <xsd:complexType name="keyedReferenceGroup" final="restriction">
>
>
>
> <xsd:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
>
>
>
> <xsd:choice>
>
>
>
> <xsd:element ref="uddi:keyedReference"/>
>
>
>
> <xsd:element ref="uddi:keyedReferenceGroup"/>
>
>
>
> <xsd:choice>
>
>
>
> </xsd:sequence>
>
>
>
> <xsd:attribute name="tModelKey" type="uddi:tModelKey"
> use="required"/>
>
>
>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Karthick Sankarachary
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: uddi-spec-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> uddi-spec-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]