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

["Luc Clement" <lclement@windows.microsoft.com>]

Title: Message

 

---

From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 08:48
To: Luc Clement; Tom Bellwood; Anne Thomas Manes
Cc: 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

 

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Luc Clement [mailto:lclement@windows.microsoft.com] 
 > Sent: Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2003 17:11
 > To: Tom Bellwood; Anne Thomas Manes
 > Cc: 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
 > 

 > Tom, Anne and all:

 > I have reservations on some of the comments on this and related threads so far:

 > 1) I wouldn't want to see a "relationship" of any sort between the TC and a publisher of a tModel whereby the TC is deemed to have "approved" a tModel. This is not within our mandate, nor is it in the Member Section Steering Committee's mandate. The role of the TC should be to identify clear and objective criteria that the SC uses in its decision to agree to post (or not) a tModel.  

Luc, I don't see a real difference between a publisherAssertion (that points to a given tModel) published by a TC or SC representative to the UBR and a list entry (that contains characteristics of a given tModel) on a website managed by the TC or SC. Deriving up-to-date information from the UBR would not allow the website to get out of date (and would prevent tModel publishers to complain about this).
[LC] You're right... I just retracted on the desire of not carrying out a "sign of approval" decision. Indeed, the moment we post the info on the page, we've issued a sign-of-approval. 

As for dynamically deriving content, I think we can find a solution that is not too taxing and yet achieves our goals. Let's close on top-level issues first and come back to this. 

Claus

<snipped the rest of the conversation/>