they are receiving.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:45
PM
Subject: RE: [regrep] Another positive
ebXML article slips thru media censors
<Quote>
The problem is that the
standard does not appear to be sufficiently broad to support the management
and governance of the full range of artefacts needed to implement SOA.
</Quote>
Of course not -
UDDI does not have a respository, so what's to govern? This sounds to me like
someone just stating the obvious.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514 <= new office number as of 09/19/05
C: 202-251-0731
UDDI inadequate for SOA
Friday 23rd
September 2005
Written By: Peter Abrahams
Copyright © 2005 Bloor Research
Universal Description, Discovery and
Integration (UDDI) is the registry standard from the Organisation for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) and is well
supported by IBM, Microsoft and others. The intent is that it should be used
to register web services and, as its name implies, the registration will
create a standard description, which will enable services to be discovered
and then integrated together. There is no doubt that such a service is
necessary to support a System Orientated Architecture (SOA) and early
implementations have used UDDI to good effect.
The problem is that the standard does not
appear to be sufficiently broad to support the management and governance of
the full range of artefacts needed to implement SOA. This is the argument
put forward by the ebXML (electronic business using eXtensible Markup
Language) technical committee, which has developed a series of OASIS
standards.
The initial concern of the ebXML committee was
defining standard message formats for electronic business (for example
defining the standard parts of an invoice). As part of this standards effort
it was obvious that the different artefacts needed to be registered; that
is, there needed to be a place where you could discover that an invoice had
been defined. But registration alone was not enough, it was also necessary
to have somewhere to store the definition – commonly known as a repository.
The committee recognised that if the whole lifecycle of an artefact was to
be managed then the registry and the repository had to be joined at the hip.
If they were not, it would be possible for a change to an artefact (for
example, the addition of new field types in the invoice) to be implemented
without the registry being aware.
Ed Dodds
Technology Convergence
Strategist
dodds@conmergence.com
<Conmergence.com/>
ed_dodds_skype skype
615. 429 . 8744 cel | tel
ed1dodds
aim
49457096
icq
conmergence.com
ebxmlforum.org
healthcare.xml.org
mbproject.org