RE: [uddi-spec] Summary of standards for external taxonomies

[Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>]

I think the essential difference is one of perspective - I'm coming from
the perspective we have a category system in UDDI and want to express it
in an external schema, e.g. TopicMaps, you're coming at it from having a
TopicMap schema you want to get into UDDI. Both, of course, are valid.

Working out how to fit a TopicMap schema into the UDDI keyValue,
keyReference mechanism is important, and I'm glad someone has given that
some thought. However, my gut feeling is that this mapping exercise may
need to be addressed with any taxonomy representation schema (e.g
DAML/OIL etc.). In many cases the mapping will be obvious and trivial
but (as TopicMap shows) this may not always be the case.

There may be scope to see if they is a way of generically modelling the
mapping in a machine readable way, so that we can also include the
mapping information in the UDDI registry for TopicMaps and other
schemas.

Matthew

P.S. I will have to give apologies for todays meeting. I may be able to
make some of the meeting, but can't guarantee it.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com]
Sent:	Tue 04/03/2003 09:37
To:	Matthew Dovey; 'Max Voskob'; 'uddi-spec'
Cc:	
Subject:	RE: [uddi-spec] Summary of standards for external
taxonomies

Matthew,

I do not recall now whether I had responded to your previous suggestion,
but from the outset I believe we shared largely complementary, if not
similar, visions of approaching this issue.  

<snip>

The only problem might arise in mapping the information provided by the
external taxonomy service to keyValues in UDDI keyedReferences (i.e.
applying external service's keys in UDDI), which is not specifically
addressed in your solution. 

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