Re: [uddi-spec] RQ 011-014 Taxonomy items - Minutes 20031014

[Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>]

Mary, please, see my comments inline

Max

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Nishikawa" <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>
To: <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: [uddi-spec] RQ 011-014 Taxonomy items - Minutes 20031014


> Feedback on RQ 011-014 Taxonomy items
>
>  From minutes:
>  >>..we discussed whether relationship information would impact the
> validation of the various value sets (OWL may require new constructs).
>
> *Mary Nishikawa
> Yes, I would say so. It would depend on the kind of validation you are
> referring to. I was under the impression that when you speak about
> validation, you are referring to validation against a W3C Schema -- so
this
> is a structural validation, not a semantic validation requirement. You
> would need to trust the publisher on the validation of the contents before
> publishing semantic content, or you need a full-fledged constraint
> language, query language, and support for them in your system. You won't
be
> able to do this with XQuery either .

*Max Voskob
I can see 2 types of validation:
1) validate the taxonomy/ontology as sush to make sure that it is a
semantically and syntactically valid structure
2) validate the value set that the taxonomy/ontology contains against the
value set contained in the registry

In my opinion, both are required if the registry is responsible for data
quality.


>
>  >>Would the same hold true for XTM? At issue is whether UDDI has a
> requirement to keep the  relationship information.
>
*Max Voskob
My understanding is that UDDI as such is not interested in relationships,
but the users and client applications are.
The taxonomy is an external entity to UDDI and the only link is a
KEY-NAME-VALUE triplet.

I think I have to give my proposal a complete rethink.
My understanding of the whole idea is changing.

Cheers,
Max

... the rest of the previous posting was removed by MV...