RE: [regrep-semantic] UDDI intel

[john.gillerman@sisconet.com]

My not very well informed take on it is that at this point adoption of OWL
by the UDDI folks is complementary.  I don't think that UDDI's models for
collaboration are as complete as ebXML's.  If both registries present an OWL
based interface for accessing registry data then couldn't the RDF/OWL
representations of the ebXML collaboration models get adopted by the UDDI
folks. I would think that this is a good think given that it is an open
approach instead of being based on something designed in secret like some
sort of WinFS extension.  Of course if the UDDI folks come up with different
models for collaboration, I think it would be competitive.

I would suggest that we consider joint talks about a common semantic model
for collaboration.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Pollock [mailto:Jeff.Pollock@networkinference.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:44 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph; Registry TC - SCM SC
> Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] UDDI intel
>
>
> In general.
>
> The ebXML SCM approach to incorporating OWL is quite RIM-specific I
> think.
>
> -Jeff-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:32 PM
> To: Registry TC - SCM SC
> Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] UDDI intel
>
> Jeff,
>
> Are you speaking about UDDI in general? Or their approach to
> incorporating OWL?
>
> Joe
>
> Jeff Pollock wrote:
> >
> > All-
> >
> > Most of you must have heard this already, but it appears that UDDI 3.0
> > is pointed towards an OWL interface as well.
> >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=618
> > 9&wg_abbrev=uddi-spec
> >
> > What is this group's opinion about UDDI?  Is it a competitive
> approach,
> > or is it complementary?
> >
> > -Jeff-
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>