Re: [regrep] UDDI as the registry for ebXML components: Typo?

["Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>]

I will also write up a formal change request. But that takes more time...

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; <karl.best@oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] UDDI as the registry for ebXML components: Typo?


> <Quote>
> Thanks for the proposal. I will forward it to the UDDI TC.
> </Quote>
>
> Thanks so much Anne [1].
>
> Joe
>
> [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200307/msg00004.html
>
> Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the proposal. I will forward it to the UDDI TC.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
> > To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> > Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; <karl.best@oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [regrep] UDDI as the registry for ebXML components: Typo?
> >
> > > <Quote>
> > > I'm still having trouble understanding what can be easily
> > > misinterpreted. Can you perhaps propose some alternate wording? Is it
as
> > > simple as just saying "ebXML services and Web services" rather than
> > > "ebXML and Web services"?
> > >
> > > Just trying to understand the problem...
> > > </Quote>
> > >
> > > Thanks Anne. I appreciate your working with us, and I know you and the
> > > other UDDI folks have nothing but good intentions. I've already made a
> > > motion to have our TC chair vet this with the UDDI TC chairs (with no
> > > opposition from our TC so far), but for what it's worth here's how I
> > > would change the phrase - but I'll start with the current version of
the
> > > first and second paragraphs on p.3 of the TN under "1.1 Problem
> > > Statement", so that the context is clear:
> > >
> > > <CurrentParagraphs>
> > > Multiple consortia have initiated pilot projects using the ebXML
> > > framework for business-to-business transactions, while corporations
have
> > > also begun adopting ebXML technologies for internal use. At the same
> > > time Web service technologies, which have significant momentum due to
> > > unprecedented industry support, are also being rolled out. This
> > > introduces significant concerns of cost and manageability, because
ebXML
> > > and Web services impose separate infrastructure requirements and
> > > platform components.
> > >
> > > As a universal technology for publication and discovery of service
> > > metadata, UDDI allows the bridging of the two infrastructures by
> > > accommodating metadata registrations for Web services as well as ebXML
> > > framework components, enabling interoperability among trading partners
> > > using ebXML or Web services. However, a prescribed methodology of
> > > modeling services and components which are conformant to ebXML
> > > specifications is required to make interoperable solutions possible.
> > > </CurrentParagraphs>
> > >
> > > <ProposedParagraphs>
> > > Multiple consortia have initiated pilot projects using the ebXML
> > > framework for business-to-business transactions, while corporations
have
> > > also begun adopting ebXML technologies for internal use. At the same
> > > time Web service technologies, which have significant momentum due to
> > > unprecedented industry support, are also being rolled out. There may
be
> > > situations in which a UDDI user may wish to access ebXML framework
> > > components that are registered in an ebXML registry. This Technical
Note
> > > provides guidance on how to handle such scenarios.
> > >
> > > In addition to being a universal technology for publication and
> > > discovery of service metadata, the fact that UDDI also enables
discovery
> > > ebXML framework components can help enable interoperability among
> > > trading partners that use UDDI and ebXML registry. However, a
prescribed
> > > methodology of modeling services and components which are conformant
to
> > > ebXML specifications is required to make interoperable solutions
> > > possible.
> > > </ProposedParagraphs>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > See inline...
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
> > > > To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> > > > Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:14 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [regrep] UDDI as the registry for ebXML components:
Typo?
> > > >
> > > > > <Quote1>
> > > > > My interpretation of the paragraph is "ebXML services and Web
> > services",
> > > > > where "ebXML services" = services that communicate using the ebXML
> > > > > infrastructure (ebMS and possibly CPPA and BPSS), and "Web
services" =
> > > > > services that communicate using the SOAP/WSDL infrastructure.
> > > > > </Quote1>
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a fair interpretation, I believe. In light of that, I'll
> > restate
> > > > > the quote from the UDDI TN:
> > > > >
> > > > > "This introduces significant concerns of cost and manageability,
> > because
> > > > > ebXML and Web services impose separate infrastructure requirements
and
> > > > > platform components."
> > > > >
> > > > > So given your interpretation, this would mean ([]'s indicate
> > > > > substitution of your intepretation into original text):
> > > > >
> > > > > "This introduces significant concerns of cost and manageability,
> > because
> > > > > [services that communicate using the ebXML infrastructure (ebMS
and
> > > > > possibly CPPA and BPSS)] and [services that communicate using the
> > > > > SOAP/WSDL infrastructure] impose separate infrastructure
requirements
> > > > > and platform components."
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that's fair - separate infrastructure and platform
components
> > > > > are required in cases where one is creating/maintaining a CPPA or
> > BPSS,
> > > > > and where one is creating WSDL description and SOAP messages
(using a
> > > > > SOAP toolkit, for instance).
> > > >
> > > > We agree.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would also emphasize that UDDI does not support creation of WSDL
> > > > > descriptions and SOAP messages either.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. I don't think anything in the TN implies that it does. UDDI
is a
> > > > registry, which is one, small, optional piece of the SOAP/WSDL Web
> > services
> > > > infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <Quote2>
> > > > > There is more to "infrastructure" than just the registry. The
ebXML
> > > > > infrastructure is different from the SOAP/WSDL infrastructure, and
> > users
> > > > > must deploy different platform components to support the two
> > > > > infrastructures.
> > > > > </Quote2>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes (please reference my response direction above). I would then
infer
> > > > > from that that there is more to "infrastructure" than just a UDDI
> > > > > registry, as ebXML Registry and UDDI Registry are (in my mind)
very
> > > > > close to being equal in terms of functionality and capability for
> > > > > registration and maintenance of Web service descriptions, given
v3.0
> > of
> > > > > both specifications.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. And I think this is the point of the TN. If you are using
both
> > > > infrastructures, you don't need both registries. It's advisable to
pick
> > one
> > > > or the other. If you decide to use UDDI, here's how to register your
> > ebXML
> > > > services in it.
> > > >
> > > > You have a similar document that says if you decide to use RegRep,
> > here's
> > > > how to register your SOAP/WSDL services in it. I have no objection
to
> > this
> > > > document. It think it's a very useful document. But I do think that
you
> > need
> > > > to expand it, as I mentioned before.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <Quote3>
> > > > > You can register both SOAP/WSDL services and ebXML services in a
UDDI
> > > > > registry. Of course you can say the same for an ebXML registry.
> > > > > </Quote3>
> > > > >
> > > > > <Quote4>
> > > > > But this is a UDDI TN, so it makes sense for this TN to explain
how to
> > > > > use UDDI to support both environments.
> > > > > </Quote4>
> > > > >
> > > > > What would you think if we presented information in an ebXML TN
that
> > > > > could easily be misinterpreted by readers regarding UDDI's
> > capabilities?
> > > >
> > > > I'm still having trouble understanding what can be easily
> > misinterpreted.
> > > > Can you perhaps propose some alternate wording? Is it as simple as
just
> > > > saying "ebXML services and Web services" rather than "ebXML and Web
> > > > services"?
> > > >
> > > > Just trying to understand the problem...
> > > >
> > > > Anne
> > > >
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely
> > > > >
> > > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe said:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > <Quote2>
> > > > > > > the technical note uses the term "Web services" to refer to
> > WSDL-base
> > > > > > > Web services, and it implies that ebXML services are not Web
> > services.
> > > > > > > Is this your objection?
> > > > > > > </Quote2>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not exactly - my observation is with the wording of the
following
> > > > > > > phrase:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ebXML and Web services impose separate infrastructure
> > requirements
> > > > and
> > > > > > > platform components."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To the reader, "ebXML and Web services" could mean "ebXML
services
> > and
> > > > > > > Web services" (where "ebXML services" could mean BPSS for
> > example), or
> > > > > > > it could mean "ebXML and Web services". Whichever one it is
> > > > interpreted
> > > > > > > as, I think it is not accurate because one can register and
> > maintain
> > > > Web
> > > > > > > services descriptions (whether they be WSDL, DAML-S, etc.) in
an
> > ebXML
> > > > > > > Registry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Three points:
> > > > > > - Given the readership of this TN (presumably UDDI users), I'm
not
> > sure
> > > > that
> > > > > > the destinction makes a lot of difference. My interpretation of
the
> > > > > > paragraph is "ebXML services and Web services", where "ebXML
> > services" =
> > > > > > services that communicate using the ebXML infrastructure (ebMS
and
> > > > possibly
> > > > > > CPPA and BPSS), and "Web services" = services that communicate
using
> > the
> > > > > > SOAP/WSDL infrastructure.
> > > > > > - There is more to "infrastructure" than just the registry. The
> > ebXML
> > > > > > infrastructure is different from the SOAP/WSDL infrastructure,
and
> > users
> > > > > > must deploy different platform components to support the two
> > > > > > infrastructures.
> > > > > > - The whole point of the technical note is to help users reduce
one
> > > > piece of
> > > > > > that duplicate infrastructure: the registry. You can register
both
> > > > SOAP/WSDL
> > > > > > services and ebXML services in a UDDI registry. Of course you
can
> > say
> > > > the
> > > > > > same for an ebXML registry. But this is a UDDI TN, so it makes
sense
> > for
> > > > > > this TN to explain how to use UDDI to support both environments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding of the following phrase in the front of the above one
(I
> > > > believe)
> > > > > > > skews the message even further:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "This introduces significant concerns of cost and
manageability,"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you dispute that maintaining dual infrastructures introduces
> > > > additional
> > > > > > costs and management?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So my bottom-line question would be: Why should there be a
need
> > for
> > > > > > > separate infrastructure requirements and platform components
for
> > ebXML
> > > > > > > and Web services?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because most Web services platforms (.NET, WebLogic, WebSphere,
> > Oracle
> > > > 9iAS,
> > > > > > EAServer, JBoss, WASP, GLUE, Cape Clear, XMLBus, PocketSOAP,
> > SOAP:Lite,
> > > > > > etc.) don't support ebXML. And most people that build SOAP/WSDL
Web
> > > > services
> > > > > > use one of these platforms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Anne
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> > > >
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
> > > > php
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > ----
> >
> > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
> > php


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
php