[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding
Sanjay and folks,
My motivation lies purely in insuring that a cohesive infrastructure for
eBusiness will emerge on the Internet. This is point is particularly
relevant for registries next year, as UDDI will complete as a project
(according to official plan). IBM has been working within the critical
standards, initiatives, and projects with intentions to build that
cohesiveness and foster cross-communication across these groups. This
should be evident with our significant influence with critical points such
as the neutralization and leadership in the advancement of SOAP, constant
nagging for the alignment of ebXML Messaging with SOAP, and more. My point
is that although I may be a bit harsh sometimes, I don't think you should
view open discussions around the critical topic of multiple standards and
positioning as non-constructive.
As far as RAWS goes, I support this and it makes sense. There are going to
be more Web Services than anyone can count, they will be registered in
UDDI, and there is nothing but good about enabling OASIS/ebXML R as a Web
Service. Also, with the current tools, it is easy to do.
I am currently not in support of ROWS as this does appear to me overlap
with UDDI. Unlike Farrukh, I don't yet see how this brings UDDI and ebXML R
together. This is due to my belief that positioning efforts for
encompassing success is best done by scoping function and data to each
effort. It is a difficult sell to me with Farrukh's scenario that, as I
understand it, divides-up service description data across efforts. Further,
Dan makes the positive comment that ebXML's Organization represents a
submitting or responsible organization for a "repository" item, not a
Business. I agree that this is a correct observation with the *current*
documents, but the IONA proposal from Sanjay appears to me per section 4 to
cast Organization as a Business that provides services per "A business
"Organization" X provides a software selling "Service"." Clearly this is
overlap with UDDI, and again I believe separating data and function across
efforts is fundamentally the best way to positioning for success.
All of that said, it is very possible that not all, or not the majority,
members of this group fundamentally share my primary motivation.
We can talk about this further on today's call.
Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
"Patil, Sanjay" <SPatil@iona.com> on 09/06/2001 11:10:58 AM
To: "'Munter, Joel D'" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>, Dan Chang/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
cc: Lisa Carnahan <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>,
"'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org'"
<regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org>, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Patil, Sanjay" <SPatil@iona.com>
Subject: RE: Proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding
Thanks Joel. This is the first instance of some constructive
feedback (technical) I am seeing out of some 10 to 15 Emails
on this issue after I submitted the proposal.
>>Sanjay states "...intrinsic objects by definition would
>>provide richer functionality with extrinsic objects." Could someone
>>of this
>>list please provide a clear identification of the "benefits" of an
>>intrinsicObject vs. those of an extrinsicObject.
I guess I need to give further clarification on this one. By natively
supporting the Service and ServiceBinding objects in the RIM, a user
experience in using the registry is much improved as the registry
now provides APIs for the business objects from his domain. I
understand that this is an obvious benefit that Registry can bring
to the end user by supporting a comprehensive set of business objects
intrinsically.
Again, please note that what I submitted is a "proposal" and it
has to go through reviews like this.
>>In section 4, a SpecificationLink is identified and a preliminary
>>mapping to
>>a set of runtime parameters is mentioned. It is unclear if there is
>>the
>>possibility of many parameters to each specification link and many
>>specification links to each binding or some other cardinality. Please
>>clarify this.
The proposal is based on the use case that a ServiceBinding would make
use of one or more technical specifications. For each technical
specification, a set of runtime parameters are to be specified.
With this the cardinality relationship would be - a ServiceBinding
composed of one or more SpecificationLinks. Each SpecificationLink
consisting of a set of runtime parameters and pointing to a single
technical specification. Again, if the team discovers that this
use case is not generic, let us discuss further.
>>Within Section 4.1.2, I read "...The description attribute of
>>ServiceBinding
>>provides details about the relationship between several specification
>>links
>>comprising the Service Binding. It would be nice to formalize such a
>>relationship for machine processing purposes." Is modeling these
>>"relationships" also a part of this proposal or is it pure speculation
>>on
>>the part of the author?
What is your opinion on this, Joel? Personally, I prefer to have the
model take care of as much "machine processing" as possible. However,
I wanted to open this particular issue for more discussion, hence I
worded it as "It would be nice ...".
In general, thanks to Joel again for encouraging me by a technical
review of the proposal and bringing the health of conversation back
to normal.
thanks,
Sanjay Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
IONA
Total Business Integration (TM)
Phone: 408 350 9619 http://www.iona.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Munter, Joel D [mailto:joel.d.munter@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:44 PM
To: 'Dan Chang'; Farrukh Najmi
Cc: Lisa Carnahan; 'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org'; Scott Hinkelman;
Patil, Sanjay
Subject: RE: Proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding
I strongly agree with Scott's and Dan's comments and I am encouraged by
Farrukh's reply. Although we try to say nice things about each other, the
correct word is complementary, not complimentary. That said, I offer these
constructive comments and questions about the proposal itself. Seeing the
potential impact and suggested changes to the RIM may clarify what is being
proposed.
In section 2.1, Sanjay states "...intrinsic objects by definition would
provide richer functionality with extrinsic objects." Could someone of
this
list please provide a clear identification of the "benefits" of an
intrinsicObject vs. those of an extrinsicObject.
In section 4, a SpecificationLink is identified and a preliminary mapping
to
a set of runtime parameters is mentioned. It is unclear if there is the
possibility of many parameters to each specification link and many
specification links to each binding or some other cardinality. Please
clarify this.
Within Section 4.1.2, I read "...The description attribute of
ServiceBinding
provides details about the relationship between several specification links
comprising the Service Binding. It would be nice to formalize such a
relationship for machine processing purposes." Is modeling these
"relationships" also a part of this proposal or is it pure speculation on
the part of the author?
Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:58 AM
To: Farrukh Najmi
Cc: Farrukh Najmi; Lisa Carnahan; 'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org';
Scott Hinkelman; Patil, Sanjay
Subject: Re: Proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding
Farrukh,
I agree with your scenario on using UDDI and OASIS/ebXML Registry in a
complimentary manner. This will be very beneficial to the industry.
Regarding Organization, I don't believe it overlaps with UDDI. Organization
in OASIS/ebXML Registry represents a submitting or responsible organization
for a repository item. It does not represent a business entity.
Regards, Dan
Metadata Management Technology and Standard
IBM DBTI for e-Business
Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com
VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
Phone: (408)-463-2319
Farrukh Najmi
<Farrukh.Najmi To: Dan Chang/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
@Sun.COM> cc: Farrukh Najmi
<Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>, Lisa Carnahan
<lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>,
"'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org'"
09/05/01 09:39
<regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org>, Scott
AM Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Patil, Sanjay" <SPatil@iona.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for
supporting Service and
ServiceBinding
Dan,
Thanks to both you and Scott for your thoughts and concerns. I agree that
ebXML Registry should
not try and be a global business registry. I believe that is not the intent
of Sanjay's proposal.
I believe Sanjay's proposal is bringing UDDI and ebXML closer together and
providing a mapping
between UDDI
information model and ebXML. While the global nature of UDDI could be used
to publish minimal
metadata for an
Organization, Service, ServiceBinding it could be mapped and routed to an
ebXML Registry where
more detailed metadata
could be provided (including user defined metadata as Slots and including
arbitrary
relationships). Finally the binding could
be linked to an ExtrinsicObject that is proxying an actual specification in
the ebXML Registry's
repository.
Does the above scenario not use both registries in a complimentary manner?
Let us discuss the issue in the next RAWS sub-team meeting. I have not
heard from you on your
time preference. So far tomorrow 2-3pm seems best for folks. I want to
emphasize that we are not
going to do anything in haste here and will operate as a team to sort
through the issues.
As far as Organization goes, we have had Organization in RIM since the
earliest versions
and it is fairly important to our model.
Lastly, I would be very interested in contributing to the success of any
sincere efforts to
bringing UDDI and ebXML Registry closer
in a meaningful manner. But until that happens, I feel we should not be
ignoring the needs of
users of ebXML Registry and sitting by the sidelines waiting.
Dan Chang wrote:
> Farrukh,
>
> I agree with what Scott said in his note. I believe OASIS/ebXML Registry
> should NOT be a business registry, duplicating the functionality of UDDI,
> for reasons that Scott has pointed out. The industry does not need two
> overlapping specifications.
>
> If Sanjay's proposal is intended to facilitate the interoperability and
> integration of OASOS/ebXML Registry with UDDI, that will be very fine.
For
> example, UDDI manages business definitions, business service interfaces
and
> technical bindings, but it does NOT manage any corresponding
specification
> documents. If Sanjay's proposal deals with these specification documents
> but NOT business definitions, business service interfaces or technical
> bindings, that will be very fine.
>
> Regards, Dan
>
> Metadata Management Technology and Standard
> IBM DBTI for e-Business
> Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com
> VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
> Phone: (408)-463-2319
>
>
> Farrukh Najmi
> <Farrukh.Najmi To: Dan Chang/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> @Sun.COM> cc: "Patil, Sanjay"
<SPatil@iona.com>, Scott
> Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> 09/04/01 04:43
"'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org'"
> PM
<regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org>, Lisa Carnahan
> <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov>
> Subject: Re: Proposal for
supporting Service and
> ServiceBinding
>
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> This work item was sanctioned early on when we discussed work items for
> V2.0. We had discussed earlier in a
> RAWS meeting that we will include this item in the RAWS team as it is
> related to web services.
>
> I do not believe that our progress should be hindered by what is going on
> in UDDI. The UDDI team is
> constantly making changes in each release that duplicates ebXMl
> functionality. I cannot even discuss
> specific instances as it is private to the UDDI AG. On the other hand
every
> thing in this TC is open for
> duplication.
>
> I feel that there is a string need for us to support the capabilities
> outlined by Sanjay and they fit well
> with focus on web services in this team. Please, lets focus on the merits
> of the proposal instead.
>
> Dan Chang wrote:
>
> > Sanjay,
> >
> > I am concerned that in doing so we will explicitly overlap and repeat
> what
> > has been done in UDDI. I believe we ought to first resolve the issue on
> > positioning OASIS/ebXML Registry with UDDI, as suggested by Scott.
> >
> > Regards, Dan
> >
> > Metadata Management Technology and Standard
> > IBM DBTI for e-Business
> > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com
> > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
> > Phone: (408)-463-2319
> >
> >
> > "Patil,
> > Sanjay" To:
> "'regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org'"
> > <SPatil@iona.c
> <regrep-raws@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > om> cc:
> > Subject: Proposal for
> supporting Service and ServiceBinding
> > 09/04/01 03:05
> > PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is a proposal for supporting Service and ServiceBinding objects
> > as first class object in the RIM.
> > <<SupportServiceAndServiceBinding.doc>>
> >
> > In order to be readily useful, a registry needs to have inherent
support
> > for
> > the commonly used business documents. Business Service interface and
the
> > technical binding of these Business Service interfaces seem to be
falling
> > in
> > such a category.
> >
> > 1. Providing inherent support for common business
> > documents.
> > 2. Functionally complete in comparison with other
> > Registry
> > Standards
> >
> > Please review the proposal and let us start discussing it over the mail
> > list.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sanjay Patil
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > IONA
> > Total Business Integration (TM)
> > Phone: 408 350 9619 http://www.iona.com
> >
> > (See attached file: SupportServiceAndServiceBinding.doc)
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Name:
> SupportServiceAndServiceBinding.doc
> > SupportServiceAndServiceBinding.doc Type: WINWORD File
> (application/msword)
> > Encoding: BASE64
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> #### najmi.vcf has been removed from this note on September 05 2001 by
Dan
> Chang
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
#### najmi.vcf has been removed from this note on September 05 2001 by Dan
Chang
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC