RE: [uddi-spec] Taxonomy Browsing/Navigation Requirements

[Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>]

So, you have a taxonomy tModel [A] whose categoryBag says its the taxonomy 
(keyValue="categorization").

Another tModel [B] has a categoryBag that says tModelKey=<rddl-nature> 
keyValue=<nature-URI> and tModelKey=<rddl-purpose> keyValue=<purpose-URI> 
and the overviewURL points to a file that I can download (then upload to 
WASP-UDDI for example).

If there was a single standard (e.g., OWL) taxonomy format, then perhaps 
tModel [A] could also have the rddl stuff in its categoryBag.

Given multiple formats, I need to relate tmodel [B] to taxonomy tModel 
[A].  So I can add a third keyedRef to the categoryBag of [B] where 
tModelKey=<x> keyValue=<tModelKey-for-[A]>.

So, I still have the extra level of indirection.  I have to search for and 
retrieve [A], then search for tModels whose categoryBag refers to [A].
If I already know [A]'s tModelKey, then I do not have to do that 1st step.

We can do both.
categoryBag for [A] can have rddl-nature saying it (overviewURL) is RDDL, 
and follow the RDDL links to get to the taxonomy files.
Also have [B] that is related to [A] by virtue of A's tModelKey in [B]'s 
categoryBag.

Or, [A] 's rddl-nature and rddl-purpose suggest that the overviewURL points 
to OWL for the taxonomy, and have [B] point to RDDL and be associated with [A].

The RDDL taxonomy tModel I defined was intended to use keyValue="rddlSpec" 
if the overviewURL points to RDDL.
That is basically the rddl:nature, but does not say anything about its purpose.
See
http://uddi.ibm.com/ubr/uddiget?tModelKey=UUID%3A49BE0F40-E9F9-11D7-B602-000629DC0A53

keyValue="wsdlSpec" is used in the WSDL BP, which effectively is used like 
rddl:nature, but says nothing about the purpose of the WSDL.  Would its 
purpose be for doing wsdl2java or simply to get the soap:address?  There 
could be many purposes, or generically its purpose is just to "describe the 
service".  I think rddl:purpose is meant to be a little more specific so 
that applications can grok it and act accordingly.

Then there is the TN that deals with value set overview documents
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tn/uddi-spec-tc-tn-valuesetoverviewdocument-20040316.htm

presumably the overviewURL of a taxonomy tModel points to a documents that 
contains the info described in the TN.
This info could be in the RDDL document (its just XHTML).

It would be nice to change the template
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tn/uddi-spec-tc-valueset-overviewdocument-template20040316.htm
so it includes rddl attributes (and is XHTML).  Section 2.7 of the TN 
(section 9 of the template) may be a place to add rddl:nature and 
rddl:purpose to the links.

Paul


At 08:09 AM 2004-05-06, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
>Rather than requiring an extra level of indirection (pointing to an RDDL
>which points to the taxonomy), I suggest that we define tModels for the
>rddl:nature and rddl:purpose information. The overviewURL could then point
>to the downloadable representation, and the nature and purpose info would be
>specified in the categoryBag (allowing users to query UDDI for a compatible
>representation of the taxonomy/ontology).
>
>Anne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 1:38 PM
>To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Taxonomy Browsing/Navigation Requirements
>
>At 08:06 AM 2004-05-04, John Colgrave wrote:
> >1) Representation of taxonomies
> >
> >How should taxonomies be presented to clients when returned from the new
> >browse/query API?
> >
> >I would imagine that client/tool vendors would want to be able to load the
> >same taxonomy file that a registry loads (that is the approach that the IBM
> >tooling adopts) so I imagine that clients/tools will be written to support
> >OWL in RDF/XML, which means that returning RDF/XML from the UDDI API would
> >be a good thing as a client would only have to support one format.  The
> >RDF/XML would probably have to be generated from the current state of the
> >taxonomy in the UDDI registry, so this is effectively the export function
> >that I mentioned in the FTF.
> >
> >Alternatively, we could define a schema very like Tony's proposal and use
> >that as the UDDI-specific exchange syntax between a UDDI registry and a
>UDDI
> >client.
>
>As I said before [1],
>
>I think the overviewURL of a taxonomy tModel should point to a RDDL
>document, which then points to downloadable representations of the taxonomy.
>
>The rddl:nature would tell you whether its OWL, XTM, or some other form.
>
>The rddl:purpose would tell you the primary usage for that representation
>(e.g., client side GUI, simple keyValue validation, etc.)
>
>A client-side tool can search UDDI for taxonomy tModels, follow the
>overviewURL to the RDDL,  look for rddl:nature attributes that they can
>grok, and download the XML file pointed to by the RDDL.  The tool can then
>render the taxonomy in the tool GUI and provide better response time to the
>user than drilling down with a browser through the limited set of checked
>(internal or external) taxonomies supported by a UDDI registry and its web
>GUI.
>
>As an example, see tModel [2].  Follow its overviewURL in a browser (works
>in IE, but Firefox renders per MIME text/plain).  View source to see
>rddl:nature and rddl:purpose.  Links to taxonomy files that can be uploaded
>to MS and Systinet UDDI servers.
>
>[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200403/msg00088.html
>[2]
>http://uddi.ibm.com/ubr/uddiget?tModelKey=UUID%3A49BE0F40-E9F9-11D7-B602-000
>629DC0A53
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>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_workgro
>up.php.