[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Federated Query
Thanks for the reply Tony. Therefore, 1. RQ 021 does not address federated query, and 2. UDDI Spec TC will not add any other requirement to support such a federated query Right? Anyone looking at using BPEL to orchestrate discovery queries across multiple independent registries (either all UDDI, or perhaps a mixure of UDDI and non-UDDI (e.g., ebRS))? Paul At 04:29 PM 2004-06-03, Rogers, Tony wrote: >What you are describing is called "distribution" in x.500. Apart from the >different name, it is essentially the same concept. It is not trivial to >implement. > >It would require replication of tModels, at least those tModels which >define taxonomies, because it would be essential that the taxonomies be >kept synchronized. Domain keyGenerator tModels would also be replicated >(they would be the method for distinguishing which keyed entities were on >which node). > >Consider a fourth node, D, which is linked only to C, but which is another >member of the federation. When C receives the request from A, should C >then forward the request to D, and include D's response with C's? Or do we >require that the federation be fully connected, so that the originator, A, >can send the request to all other nodes of the federation directly? (it >gets even more interesting if D is linked to B and C, but not to A...) > >This is quite a complicated subject. It took quite a while to sort out in >the development of x.500. I'm not sure that this is an area that we should >be venturing into without some careful thought, but there are some >compelling use-cases - as you point out, there may well be clusters of >registries where this functionality will be required. > >Tony Rogers ><mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com>tony.rogers@ca.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org] >Sent: Fri 04-Jun-04 3:10 >To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org >Cc: >Subject: [uddi-spec] Federated Query > >RQ 021 [1] does not seem to address a federated query. > >[1] ><http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/5980/uddi-vnext-proj-status.htm#_Toc66860825>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/5980/uddi-vnext-proj-status.htm#_Toc66860825 > >I will describe what I mean by federated query. Please let me know if this >was considered and dismissed and why, or if it has not been proposed and >should be considered. > >An example of a federated query is someone sending a find_business to a >UDDI server [X]. > >To make it interesting, lets assume that the request includes a categoryBag >for a specific taxonomy (not one of the basic NAICS/UNSPSC/ISO3166). > >Server [X] may have a few entries that match the query, but server [X] >would be a member of a federation with two other UDDI servers [Y] and [Z]. > >[X], [Y], and [Z] do not replicate entries among themselves. > >Server [X] would submit the same find_business request to [Y] and >[Z]. Server [X] would consolidate the results from itself [X], plus [Y] >and [Z], and return a single response to the requester. > >This assumes that [X], [Y], and [Z] have the same taxonomy (same >tModelKey); that is, they agree that a particular taxonomy is uniquely >identified by the tModelKey. An alternative would be to allow each of the >three UDDI servers to assign their own tModelKey, but use the >indentifierBag on the tModel to uniquely identify the taxonomy. This would >require a translation of the find_business query either by [X] before it >submits the request to [Y] and [Z], or for [Y] and [Z] to translate the >tModelKey sent from [X] into their local tModelKey (matching the >identifierBag in [X]). Perhaps a findQualifer could be defined to the [Y] >and [Z] to first do the translation (not discussed further here). > >It would get more involved if, for example, [Z] propagated the request to >another UDDI server [W] with which it also federates; [X] would not be >aware of [W]. > >This is my understanding of what a federated search would involve. There >would be administrative actions (and perhaps APIs) to manage the >federation. An administrator would need to configure [X] to forward >queries to [Y] and [Z]. Perhaps there could be filtering such that [X] >would know that [Y] has the taxonomy specified in the find_business >request, but [Z] does not, so [X] would not forward the request to >[Z]. Maybe some of this can be defined as a TN/BP, but perhaps some >aspects require new APIs. > >I support the U.S. DoD, so it is likely that Army, Navy, and Air Force >would have independent UDDI registries, but in some cases a user would want >to look across all these UDDI's to find instances of a particular service >throughput the DoD. A federated query would solve this problem. > >Has this capability been proposed as a requirement for UDDI v.Next? > >Paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]