Subject: Re: [regrep] Should IBM being working with us on this?
Hi David, Thanks for sharing this interesting news. The fact that UDDI does not meet the requirements of an industrial strength repository is probably not a surprise many savvy folks in the user community. After all, it was never designed for that purpose and in fact does not even have a repository. It would be good to have discussions with IBM colleagues to explore their repository requirements and how well ebXML regrep meets their needs. BTW, I am guilty for suggesting that we drop the "and Repository" from our original name "ebXMl Registry and Repository". The rationale was that the name was a mouthful. In retrospect, I think a better name that was not a mouthful would have been "ebXML Repository". I wonder if it is possible and whether it makes sense for us to officially change our name now. It would be a clear reminder that we are very much a Repository standard as indicated in our TC name regrep. What do TC members think? David RR Webber (XML) wrote: > FYI. But the recent developments the past week on rr-dev on using > OMAR with simpler GUI tools - maybe what IBM needs here? Sometimes a > simple breakthrough can make all the difference in adoption... > > I would suggest some dialogue could be critical - especially given > IBMs commit to regrep for IHE/XDS - aligning on the one secure > registry base would be a power play for them... > > DW > > IBM Calls for New SOA Registry Standard > Joe McKendrick, ZDNet Blog > > IBM spokespeople are saying that the UDDI standard for registries isn't > cutting it, and the "time is now" for a new registry standard more > focused on today's SOA realities. In the meantime, IBM will be offering > a proprietary solution. In a new report in ITWeek, IBM managers state > that SOAs have stretched the Universal Description, Discovery and > Integration (UDDI) web services standard to the limit, and that it's > time for a new standard. > > Burton Group's Anne Thomas Manes had just > issued a report that IBM's WebSphere Service Registry and Repository > (WSRR) 6.0.1 doesn't fully support UDDI, the commonly accepted standard > behind SOA registries. IBM, however, says that UDDI was originally > designed for Web services, which invoke point-to-point connections > across the network. (In fact, it was designed to be the "Yellow Pages" > of the e-business world.) > > But what enterprises need now is a registry > standard that addresses the building-block, enterprise approach of SOA, > Big Blue says. SOAs require different information about services than > do Web services, IBM claimed. According to Sunil Murthy, a manager for > WebSphere Service Registry and Repository at IBM's Software Group, UDDI > will not allow for role-based access to services, does not let companies > manage a service's life cycle to enable governance, and does not allow > for services to be searched. The IBM representatives quoted in the > article could not predict what a new registry standard would or should > look like, but said vendors should take their time in sorting things out. > http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=864 > See also Burton: > http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid26_gci1252107,00.html > > "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.) -- Regards, Farrukh Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com