[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Meeting Notes: 9/7/2001
> > Agenda:
> >
> > -Discuss Registration of Web Services (ROWS) proposal from Sanjay
> > -Discuss broader issues like potential
UDDI overlap (20 minutes)
> > -Discuss use cases and technical details
of the proposal (40
> > minutes)
Attendees: Suresh, Nikola, Scott H. Farrukh, Joel M. and Sanjay
The meeting was devoted entirely to discussing Sanjay's ROWS proposal.
Non-technical Issues
---------------------
We spent the first 30 minutes discussing broader issues that were non-technical
in nature. The focus was exclusively the
concern articulated by Scott H, Dan and Joel M. regarding potential
overlap with like functionality in UDDI.
<editorial>
It should be noted that we had this discussion despite Lisa's direction
to not let UDDI overlap and any future cooperation/convergance
be a factor in our progress.
</editorial>
The meeting started with Scott, Farrukh and Joel echoing their support
and desire for working towards a cooperation/convergence
between UDDI and ebXML registry.
Farrukh said that such cooperation/convergence needs to be bi-lateral and requires reciprocal and mutual recognition. Currently this is lopsided with ebXML recognizing the need for cooperation but UDDI not reciprocating.
Scott agreed that the ball is in UDDI's court to reciprocate.
Scott's main concerns was that UDDI's business registration functionality should not be duplicated by us and that registration of businesses, services and bindings is not something we should duplicate.
Suresh made an argument that the need for publish/discovery of web services/bindings
is a common and valid use case in non-global
registries such as a public ebXML registry.
Nikola, offered use case of a local soccer league in his hometown offering a service to sign-up kids for soccer online. This is a purely local service and it makes no sense to list it in the public UDDI Business Registry (UBR)
Technical Issues
----------------
We spent the next 30 minutes on technical issues though there were occasional forays into the UDDI overlap issue.
Joel's Technical comments
---------------------------
We started by discussing the technical comments already sent via email by Joel:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-raws/200109/msg00010.html
> these are from Joel's comments
< these are from Sanjay's proposal
>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.
Sanjay described that the difference between support for web services
in absence of
proposal and with the proposal is that the proposal addresses web services
in a first class
manner, making them more obvious and simpler to use by client.
Farrukh suggested that the model should give first class status to objects
needed in
common use case scenarios and leave a general model for covering all
other scenarios.
>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.
Farrukh pointed out that the documents clearly states:
<A SpecificationLink instance may have a usageParameters attribute
that provides a collection of Strings
^^^^^^^^
Joel agreed.
Sanjay's Question on Organization-Service Relationship
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay asked the question what if there was no compositional relationship from Organization to Service in model.
Scott felt that this would go a long way to addressing his concerns
about UDDI overlap as this avoid creeping business
semantics into ebXMl Organization object.
Joel felt that the composition relationship was important and should
be retained. He asked how else one would know who
provides the service.
Suresh asked if a Service can be bound to dynamic metadata.
Farrukh said that Service is a RegistryObject under the proposal and
all RegistryObjects relate to their submitting Organization for
audit/security purposes.
Suresh suggested that breaking the Organization-Service Relationship
solves 2 problems (addresses Scott's concerns and
improves the model to give Services a first level object status.
Scott said as long as we break Organization-Service Relationship he
is comfortable. There is nothing new in the
proposed ROWS model; DCE, CDF allowed RPC bindings to be defined in
DCE in a similar manner.
Farrukh and Nikola agreed with Sanjay's idea of breaking the Organization-Service Relationship and Suresh and Scott's analysis.
Decision: We all agreed to remove the Organization-Service
relationship in next rev of proposal
Action Item: Sanjay to send a revised version
of proposal reflecting above decision
Suresh suggested that overlap with UDDI is good,
Nikola agreed that functional overlap is not a bad thing as long as there
is
no overlap of business registration functionality.
Scott agreed.
Farrukh observed that the functional overlap in ROWS got us talking about cooperation/convergence so it cant be bad.
Agreement: functional overlap is not a bad thing as long as there is no overlap of business registration functionality.
Meeting wrapped up with plans to iterate on the proposal and improve it with team input before submission to TC.
Sanjay ball is in your court. Thanks for the thoughtful proposal and thanks to team for a fruitful meeting.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh Najmi end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC