[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF=20
web services management information in UDDI. Specifically we think that=20 common quality of service metrics such as average performance,=20 reliability, throughput and availability should be easily available in=20 consistent locations in enterprise registries of web services. We believe=20 that this has great value for customers in providing predictable places to = store and search for such information to supplement the information about=20 specific physical implementations of web services, beyond what is natively = available on bindingTemplates. We also believe that having such standard=20 ways of accessing this information enhances the value of web services=20 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=20 for appropriate web service instances to use in a given situation.=20 We would like to involve as many web services management vendors in=20 drafting a recommendation on how and where to store such information. We=20 have posted a rough draft proposal for one possible method of doing such=20 storage (and several other alternatives are presented therein).=20 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,=20 - Adam Blum, CTO, Systinet=20 - Fred Carter, architect, Amberpoint=20 To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of=20 the OASIS TC), go to=20 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave=5Fwork= group.php . --=_alternative 00694C7406256E28_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">My interpretation of the posting is that this is not detailed enough on what should be discoverable in UDDI from the Web services management information. A better approach to solve the technical mapping between Web service management and UDDI should include a detailed review of the specification in development in the OASIS TC for Web services distributed management http://www.oasis-open.org/commit= tees/tc=5Fhome.php?wg=5Fabbrev=3Dwsdm</font> <br> <br> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">As an alternative, is it better to r= ecast this paper as end user quality of service discovery? From what I read, the recommended metrics are being used by end users to select web services, as opposed to management software. If that is the intent, I think much more discussion of the context of the registry and who is asserting each of the properties for the Web service is needed.</font> <br> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Answers to the following would help me understand the proposal:</font> <br> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Is this proposal intended to assist initial selection of a service from a user's perspective or assist manageme= nt software at runtime?</font> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Is this proposal intended to apply to registries with particular access control policies? </font> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Is there any barrier to publishing s= ervices in the registry such as validation of the service or approval of the admini= strator of the registry?</font> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Are there related services that can/= should verify the assertions made by the publisher who has labelled a service with a certain metric?</font> <br> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Regards,</font> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif"><br> Andrew Hately<br> IBM Austin<br> UDDI Development, Emerging Technologies <br> Lotus Notes: Andrew Hately/Austin/IBM@IBMUS<br> Internet: hately@us.ibm.com<br> (512) 838-2866, t/l 678-2866<br> </font> <br> <br> <br> <table width=3D100%> <tr valign=3Dtop> <td width=3D40%><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif"><b>"Zdenek Svoboda&= quot; <zdenek@systinet.com></b> </font> <p><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">01/27/2004 08:48 AM</font> <table border> <tr valign=3Dtop> <td bgcolor=3Dwhite> <div align=3Dcenter><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">Please respond to<br> zdenek.svoboda</font></div></table> <br> <td width=3D59%> <table width=3D100%> <tr> <td> <div align=3Dright><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">To</font></div> <td valign=3Dtop><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif"><uddi-spec@lists.oas= is-open.org></font> <tr> <td> <div align=3Dright><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">cc</font></div> <td valign=3Dtop> <tr> <td> <div align=3Dright><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">Subject</font></div> <td valign=3Dtop><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">RE: [uddi-spec] request= for item on agenda at next FTF</font></table> <br> <table> <tr valign=3Dtop> <td> <td></table> <br></table> <br> <br> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">To me there are following two use cases regarding QoS metadata:</font> <br><font size=3D3> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">A) Searching for service by = QoS metrics. Service QoS metadata might be helpful in this scenario. As UDDI registry does not allow for interval searches in keyedReference values, storing actual values (average response time =3D 5.82 ms) does not add much value for searches. I would like to see some well-defined categorization of major QoS metrics being defined in this proposal (I'm not expert in WS management so I don't have any good suggestion) so I know if the business service runs on somebody's laptop or on corporate Sun E 10 000 machine.</fo= nt> <br><font size=3D3> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">B) Reading service QoS info.= I think that ideal way for accessing actual QoS data about business service is to define some well-known service (QoSService) that provides complex QoS information about the business service and reference the QoSService binding template (deployment) from the business service binding template (either via V3 compliant reference in categoryBag or tModelInstanceInfos). This approach is very easy for management vendors who would simply implement the standard the QoSService interface as layer on top of their QoS data stores. I can also imagine some automated process that performs some aggreg= ation on top of the QoSService and regularly updates QoS categories described in ad A).</font> <br><font size=3D3> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">Regards</font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial"><br> ZD</font> <br><font size=3D2>--<br> Zdenek Svoboda<br> Systinet Corp.<br> 5 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142<br> Tel: (617) 768-4240<br> Fax: (617) 621-1168 </font> <br><font size=3D3> </font> <br> <br> <hr><font size=3D2 face=3D"Tahoma"><b>From:</b> John Colgrave [mailto:colgr= ave@hursley.ibm.com] <b><br> Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:02 AM<b><br> To:</b> uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org<b><br> Subject:</b> RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF</font><= font size=3D3><br> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3D#000080 face=3D"Arial">I have always been very w= ary of adding such “live” metadata to UDDI. Trying to describ= e 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 alter= native services and compensating services so I doubt it would be sufficient to deem every service inoperable that had a (transitive) dependency on a parti= cular service that was deemed inoperable.</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <br><font size=3D3 color=3D#000080 face=3D"Times New Roman">John Colgrave</= font> <br><font size=3D3 color=3D#000080 face=3D"Times New Roman">IBM</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<b><br> From:</b> Morgenthal, JP [mailto:JP.Morgenthal@softwareagusa.com] <b><br> Sent:</b> 26 January 2004 22:10<b><br> To:</b> uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org<b><br> Subject:</b> FW: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">All,</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font><font size= =3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">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" metada= ta that pertains to the registration, status, and availability of Web Services. QoS is one such area, but so is application configuration and depende= ncy. 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 applicatio= n--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 capab= ility for complete management of composite software.</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">Regards,</font> <br><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Arial">JP</font> <br><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <div align=3Dcenter> <br> <hr></div> <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"Tahoma"><b>From:</b> CAHUZAC Maud / FTR&D / US [mailto:maud.cahuzac@rd.francetelecom.com] <b><br> Sent:</b> Friday, January 23, 2004 6:05 PM<b><br> To:</b> blum@systinet.com; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org<b><br> Cc:</b> GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US<b><br> Subject:</b> RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">Dear all,</font><font size=3D3 f= ace=3D"Times New Roman"> </font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">We are extremely interested in t= his 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).</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">--> TModel for QoS Information Pointing to External Resource</font><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><br> 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.</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">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, ...et= c) ?</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">Also, how this method affect the compliance with the WS-I Basic Profile which states that a service specific= ation must be describe in a WSDL file ?</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">--> Multiple Categories for Q= oS Attributes</font><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font><font size= =3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><br> We think that this solution is interesting since each service implementation is categorized with its own QoS parameters.</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">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 categor= ized with 30 different geographical taxonomy entries (and that is why taxonomy browsing mechanisms are really important in UDDI).</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">For this solution, don't you thi= nk 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 ?</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">Our concern here is how to provi= de users with metrics' unit in the CategoryBag? (does the ResponseTimeAverge is in second, millisecond, microsecond, ...?)</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">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.</font> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman">--> Extend the UDDI Data Stru= ctures</font><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><br>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]