OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for ebXML components"


As the example keys may be different based on what V2 and V3 allow,
please let the examples reflect appropriate "example" key values.  I
also agree that ebXML:TA is not required.

Joel Munter, Intel
desk: 480.552.3076
cell:  602.790.0924
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:33 AM
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Von Riegen, Claus'
Cc: 'Keisuke Kibakura'
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for ebXML
components"

Claus,

Having volunteered to be an editor of the TN in question, I would like
to address your questions.  I assume Keisuke will correct me where I do
not accurately represent his opinions.

1. I agree that the taxonomy is as applicable to V2 as it is to V3, as
well as V1.  There appears to be nothing in the text of the TN that
would preclude it from being used with any current or perhaps future
versions of UDDI specification so long as backward compatibility is
retained.

2. I do not think it was Keisuke's intent to introduce separate tModels
to represent CPP and BPSS concepts. Rather it appears that his intent is
that there should be:
1) separate tModels for each BPSS schema, each of which would be
classified by ebxml-org:specifications taxonomy with a keyValue of
"ebXML:BPSS", and
2) separate businessServices for each CPP instance, each of which would
be classified by ebxml-org:specifications taxonomy with a keyValue of
"ebXML:CPP".

Therefore no ebXML types hierarchy is inherently required as in the case
of UDDI Types Taxonomy.  We might wish that the TN set up CPP, MS and
BPSS as tModels linked to ebxml-org:specifications, but that's matter up
to discussion.

I also see no need for ebXML:TA value in the ebxml-org:specifications
value set.  I will let Keisuke address that part.

3. It appears that purpose of the ebXML:MS value of the
ebxml-org:specifications value set is to represent all concepts related
to ebXML Message Service.  Thus ebxml-org:MessageService:v1_0 tModel is
classified by ebxml-org:specifications taxonomy as a protocol related to
the ebXML Message Service.  As far as I understand, it designates a
specific version of the protocol.

Having volunteered to be the editor of this TN, I would be happy to
exercise the liberty of updating the text to appropriately reflect the
group's consolidated opinion.  If there are no more comments at this
time, I will go ahead and remove references to V2.

Thank you,
Daniel Feygin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:56 PM
> To: 'Keisuke Kibakura'; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for 
> ebXML compone nts"
> 
> 
> Keisuke,
> 
> You have a done a good job in writing up the TN. Especially, 
> I like the way how you base the examples on the scenario you 
> outline in section 2.2.1.
> 
> Here are several suggestions that might improve the TN's usability:
> 
> 1) UDDI Version
> I support Max' idea that the TN should cover both UDDI 
> Version 2 and 3, since no major change should be necessary for V3.
> 
> 2) ebXML Specification Taxonomy tModel (Section 2.2.2)
> Similar to the UDDI Types Taxonomy, the concrete categories 
> should be linked in a hierarchical manner to the generic 
> "ebXML" value. Also, I don't see a need for the "ebXML:TA" 
> value. What would it represent?
> 
> 3) ebXML Message Service tModel (Section 2.2.3)
> The first two categories are necessary, but the third one 
> ("ebXML:MS") doesn't seem to be appropriate, since the ebXML 
> Message Service tModel represents the protocol, and thus is 
> not a Web service type that is based on ebXML Mesaaging Service.
> 
> Claus 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keisuke Kibakura [mailto:kibakura@jp.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2003 18:38
> To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for 
> ebXML components"
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Please find attached my initial version of the TN "UDDI as the 
> registry for ebXML components".
> 
> I have to apologize that it is out so late and consumed your 
> review time before today's telecon. 
> 
> Plaese review and send comments to the list or me. 
> Any comments are welcome!
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> --
> Keisuke Kibakura
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC