RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std Groupand Consortium tModels and Value Sets

[Tom Bellwood <bellwood@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Anne,

I think I mostly agree with your first point, in that we shouldn't be so
particular, although I still think that if we're going to essentially
advertise these tModels at the TC level, we have some obligation to insure
that they are not frivilous.

As for your second point, you have the right idea about creating a business
relationship in the registry to essentially "certify" that the tModel has
been approved by the TC.  That's about the only way to address the issue in
an open V2 implementation. What you've got wrong is that there's no way to
do it or that it is somehow unsupported.  This is a basic V2 feature, and
the UBR fully supports it.  I still believe that the UBR is the best place
for this information to go.  It is the most publicly recognized UDDI
implementation of which I am aware that is intended for use by all, and it
is still inexorably linked to our TC.  I would suggest that our TC use it
to its best advantage in this case.   Setting up and operating a
high-availability registry is not a cheap thing to do.  Spending our TC's
resources to essentially duplicate what we already have available seems
wasteful to me.

Thanks,
Tom Bellwood       Phone:  (512) 838-9957 (external);   TL:  678/9957
(internal)
Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC
STSM - Emerging Technologies
IBM Corporation

"Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> on 05/14/2003 11:00:49 AM

To:    <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC,
       UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets




Claus/all,

I'm  really pleased to see this moving along so quickly. But I have a
couple of  concerns.

1-  This statement makes me a bit  uneasy: "The  announcement of tModel
availability is limited to tModels that represent a  well-known concept
and/or are owned by a well-known standards group or  consortium (note that
“well-known” may be limited to an industry, a geographical  region or other
contexts)."

I  wouldn't want to restrict this effort to "well-known" consortia. I think
it's  quite reasonable for a local SIG to develop a useful value set and
propose its  public availability. I would prefer that we define a public
process that permits  anyone to make a proposal. If a standards group
submits a proposal that applies  to its specific industry segment, we
should accept it without question once  we've verified that it is a
well-formed value set. If the proposal has  cross-industry application or
if it has been submitted by an individual or  informal group, then we
should evaluate it and solicit comments and input -- the  same way that we
would handle a proposed technical  note.

2-  I'm also very hesitant to use the UBR as the repository for these
"approved"  value sets. It's very difficult to distinguish valid
information from  test/junk information in the UBR. There's no way of
indicating in the UBR that a  tModel has been "approved", and I don't think
it's appropriate to require a user  to view a page on the UDDI.org member
section page to determine the status of a  tModel in the UBR. You would
need the equivalent of a business assertion  between a business entity
representing the UDDI-spec TC and the approved tModel  -- but that's not
supported. That's why I recommended a separate UDDI registry  operated by
the UDDI.org members as the registry of record. I think  it's appropriate
to require that the value set first be registered in the UBR as  part of
the application process, but once the tModel has been "approved",  it
should be registered in the UDDI .org member  registry.

Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: Von Riegen, Claus  [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:28  AM
To: 'Luc Clement';  uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of  UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR,
Std Group and Consortium tModels and  Value Sets


Luc,

Thanks for your proposal. I believe that it is important and already  well
structured.
I  took the liberty to work out the details of your Prototype page. Please
find an updated page attached.

Claus
-----Original Message-----
From: Luc Clement  [mailto:lclement@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Mai  2003 02:45
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std
Group and  Consortium tModels and Value Sets


(Apologies for my last and  premature mail)

A few meetings ago, the topic of where to post  non-normative tModels came
up in a discussion; we never concluded this  discussion. I'd like to revive
it and obtain your input on the  following.

Background
As some of you may know, during the course of the  v3 spec development, we
removed from the spec those tModels and value sets  that were not
considered appropriate to make normative in favour of having  the UDDI
Business Registry (UBR) to manage these. They include the  following:
1 UDDI Business Registry Value Set tModels:  Category System, Identifier
Systems and Categorization  Groups

1.1 North American Industry Classification  System (NAICS) 1997 Release
1.2 United Nations Standard Products and  Services Code System (UNSPSC)
Version 7.3
1.3 ISO 3166 Geographic  Code System
1.4 ISO 3166 Code Derivation for Business Locations
1.5 ISO 3166 and UNSPSC Code Group System
1.6 World Geodetic  System 1984
1.7 WGS 84 Latitude Code System
1.8 WGS 84 Longitude  Code System
1.9 WGS 84 Altitude Code System
1.10 Geographic  Precision Code System
1.11 UDDI Business Registry Postal Address  Structure
1.12 Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® Number Identifier  System
1.13 Thomas Register Supplier Identifier Code System
1.14  ISO 6523 International Code Designator (ICD) System

2 UDDI Business Registry Core  tModels

2.1  Domain Key Generator for the UDDI  Business Registry Domain
2.2  UDDI JIS X 4061 Japanese sortOrder  qualifier
The UBR's Operator's Council is currently in the  process of reviewing
these tModels in support of its UDDI v3 deployment  work. This topic is
long overdue.
TC, Standards Groups and  Consortium Needs
As we've discussed and continue to encounter, the  TC, other standards
groups and consortium need a place where they can  collect and promulgate
the existence of their tModels and value sets (e.g.  WSDL v2 TN, ebXML TN,
etc).
Proposal
The UBR Operator's Council is considering asking  the UDDI Steering
Committee to post UBR tModels on UDDI.org. At the same  time, the
OC discussed the need/desire for the TC/Consortium to  have a similar forum
and thought that we should consult the  TC.

To this end, the OC has created a prototype page  to be added to the
UDDI.org site; please find it attached. The  prototype suggests the
addition of a "Common tModels" navigation link  which displays the content
of the attached.

Please review this prototype. This matter will be  put on the agenda for
the next TC call.
Action  Required
A. The OC is soliciting your support  and interest for this; while it can
proceed independently from the TC, it  would be best to coordinate this.

B. We need to discuss the criteria for what gets  published on the page; I
would expect the Steering Committee to be the  gate keeper but they would
require guidance from the TC on matter of  criteria

As a next step once we complete this discussion and  if the TC is
favourable to posting such information, the next step would be  for the TC
(and the OC) to make a request to the UDDI-SC asking  for this content to
be posted.

For your consideration.

Luc


Luc  Clément
Microsoft
Co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec TC