FW: V3 negative vote - FW: Vote: Ascension of the UDDI v3 Specification to OASIS Standard

["Luc Clement" <luc.clement@systinet.com>]

For the record to date we've received one negative vote on the ascention of
the UDDI v3 Spec to OASIS Standard; see below. This matter will be to
subject of our telecon tomorrow.  

Time	 Tuesday, 1 Feb 2005, 15:00 to 15:30 ET	 

Description	 Description: TC Telecon. 

Call hosted by Luc Clément, Systinet 

Dial in: 
	Dial In North America : 888.502.0190 
	Dial In Toll Number: +1.706.643.6177 
	Access Code: 6177684268 

UTC: Tue-20:00, Seattle: Tue-12:00, New York: Tue-15:00, London: Tue-20:00,
Frankfurt: Tue-21:00, Moscow: Tue-23:00, Sydney: Wed-07:00	

Agenda: Discuss and dispense with the one (or more) negative votes received
on the v3 spec.

Luc Clément
Senior Program Manager, Systinet
Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Tel: +1.781.362.1330 / Cell: +1.978.793.2162 / www.systinet.com


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Lake [mailto:rlake@galdosinc.com]
>Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 17:12
>To: luc.clement@systinet.com
>Cc: tony.rogers@ca.com
>Subject: Re: Vote: Ascension of the UDDI v3 Specification to OASIS 
>Standard
>
>luc.clement@systinet.com wrote:
>
> >Ron,
> >
> >Could you kindly elaborate why you cast a negative vote on the v3 spec
[1]?
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >Luc Clement and Tony Rogers
> >Co-Chairs OASIS UDDI Spec TC
> >
> >[1]
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=675
> >
> >
> >
> >
>Hi,
>
>Sure. First I expected that the UDDI specification would pass. My vote 
>was more to solicit these sorts of discussions.  I have been involved 
>in registry discussion for quite a long time - following mostly ebRIM, 
>but also UDDI.  Within the OGC there was quite a bit of UDDI vs ebRIM 
>discussion and even some open competition. In my view, the UDDI model 
>had the advantage of simplicity for web services and was easier to 
>implement.  On the other hand I also felt that such a model was 
>essentially too simple and too restrictive by dealing ONLY with service 
>descriptions while ebRIM provided a richer information model that could 
>incorporate the description of services along with many other kinds of 
>objects (XML schemas, datasets, imagery etc.) that could be associated 
>with the web service.  We developed an ebRIM based geo-registry and for 
>a while supported a UDDI personality to enable searches by UDDI 
>clients.  It was clear that while ebRIM could emulate UDDI the converse 
>was not possible.  Extending UDDI to overcome these differences seemed 
>to me the wrong direction since ebRIM already contained the key registry
functionality (associations, taxonomies, audit trail etc.).
>
>I hope that helps clarify my position.
>
>Cheers
>
>Ron