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] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF


Title: RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF
How much of this metadata is required at runtime and how much at design time?
 
I think that putting everything in UDDI will simply make it unusable. Will just a reference to an external resource with that metadata be enough?
 
On the other hand, there is a whole lot of other categories that are useful at the time of selection of a service:
 
1. interface
2. capabilities
3. quality of service (the term is broad enough by itself)
4. cost / legal
and the list can be continued
 
It would be nice to have a pluggable mechanism to put that metadata in UDDI as needed using some generic approach.  I can think of none at the moment. Well, none that is easy enough to implement.
 
Cheers,
Max
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:02
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF

I have always been very wary of adding such “live” metadata to UDDI.  Trying to describe things like availability in UDDI can overlap with the support for availability, workload management etc. in the servers hosting the applications/services.  Similarly, trying to represent service compositions in UDDI overlaps with flow/process execution systems.  Such systems can allow for alternative services and compensating services so I doubt it would be sufficient to deem every service inoperable that had a (transitive) dependency on a particular service that was deemed inoperable.

 

John Colgrave

IBM

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Morgenthal, JP [mailto:JP.Morgenthal@softwareagusa.com]
Sent: 26 January 2004 22:10
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF

 

All,

 

    I would like to add some additional thought to the work of Adam and Fred.  I believe there is a more generic category of "live" metadata that pertains to the registration, status, and availability of Web Services.  QoS is one such area, but so is application configuration and dependency.  For example, a composite application that binds multiple Web Services into one should be able to be described in the UDDI in such a way that if one Service is inoperable, the status of the entire Composite application--through dependency chains--could be deemed inoperable.  By capturing a) a category of data that is marked as volatile and b) a model for capturing the dependency of one tModel on another.  I believe we can accomplish the goals set forth by Adam and Fred as well as enable a much greater capability for complete management of composite software.

 

Regards,

JP

 


From: CAHUZAC Maud / FTR&D / US [mailto:maud.cahuzac@rd.francetelecom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:05 PM
To: blum@systinet.com; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF

Dear all,

We are extremely interested in this topic and we are happy to see Adam joining the TC. Here are our comments (for Adam and the TC) regarding the different methods Adam proposed. To us, the best approach seems to be the use of UDDI data structure extensions (see our comments below).

--> TModel for QoS Information Pointing to External Resource
We agree that this solution is very limited since the QoS document must be processed to retrieve QoS information and no UDDI query allows us to get this information.

We have two questions for Adam: Are there only performance and reliability info in this XML document or can we find further details about the service QoS (such as all the metrics listed on the document as well as their units, life performance info, ...etc) ?

Also, how this method affect the compliance with the WS-I Basic Profile which states that a service specification must be describe in a WSDL file ?

--> Multiple Categories for QoS Attributes
We think that this solution is interesting since each service implementation is categorized with its own QoS parameters.

Of course, as long as you want to categorize at the very maximum a UDDI entity, you will always have large CategoryBags. It is the same for all types of categorization: for instance, a business, which is established in 30 different countries, will be categorized with 30 different geographical taxonomy entries (and that is why taxonomy browsing mechanisms are really important in UDDI).

For this solution, don't you think it would be better to create a QoS Taxonomy, which entries represent the different QoS metrics (taxonomy entries can be hierarchical with sub-level metrics) and create only one "Categorization" tModel to be used in the CategoryBag ?

Our concern here is how to provide users with metrics' unit in the CategoryBag? (does the ResponseTimeAverge is in second, millisecond, microsecond, ...?)

We guess that, with the progress made on the Semantic side, we could have another Taxonomy for units, and "semantically" make a relationship between the two taxonomies to provide Metrics and their units at the same time. But, at the moment, there is no way to do this in UDDI.

--> Extend the UDDI Data Structures
From our perspective, this method seems to be the best approach. Also, it would help drive adoption to UDDI V3.0.
Don't you think that the data structure extensions could be standardized so that it would avoid the issue of proprietary extensions? Moreover, we should determine explicitly which of these standardized extensions are optional or compulsory.

--> TModel for QoS Information Containing Multiple Categories of QoS Attributes
With this solution, we still have the issue of providing metrics' units within the CategoryBag of the QoSInformation tModel even though this information can be easily found in the WSDL file.

We know it is too late to open a debate on it and please bear with us for the following comment :) We just have a little concern about the use of WSDL in UDDI and probably you can help us to clarify our thoughts: Usually, a tModel represents a reusable concept. In this solution, if the QoSInformation tModel is categorized with the QoS metrics of a particular service, it is tight to this service and this is not what a tModel is meant to be. We thing that a tModel should be as generic as possible, representing a specific concept/protocole/taxonomy (such as QoS information) but it should not include any information that are bound to one service. What do you think? Are we wrong or did we misunderstand the method?

Thank you !
Regards,

 

Maud

 

-----Original Message-----
From: blum@systinet.com [mailto:blum@systinet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:37 PM
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF

We would like to propose that a technical note be created for how to store web services management information in UDDI. Specifically we think that common quality of service metrics such as average performance, reliability, throughput and availability should be easily available in consistent locations in enterprise registries of web services. We believe that this has great value for customers in providing predictable places to store and search for such information to supplement the information about specific physical implementations of web services, beyond what is natively available on bindingTemplates.  We also believe that having such standard ways of accessing this information enhances the value of web services management solutions for customers as there becomes a wider use of the QoS information beyond just the management tool software itself. This includes the ability for developers to use this information in search and browsing for appropriate web service instances to use in a given situation.

We would like to involve as many web services management vendors in drafting a recommendation on how and where to store such information. We have posted a rough draft proposal for one possible method of doing such storage (and several other alternatives are presented therein).

We are interested in discussing this at the February 10-12 Face to Face in San Francisco. It would be great if we could somehow get on the agenda for this meeting.    Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Regards,

- Adam Blum, CTO, Systinet
- Fred Carter, architect, Amberpoint

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.



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