OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [uddi-spec-comment] W3C XML Schema for XTM DTD (Needed for UDDIefforts?)

I strongly support the views represented in the last two paragraphs of
Matthew's message.  It appears that there is currently no particular
clearly superior method of representing or communicating taxonomies, so
we should strive to support whichever ones UDDI users might find
acceptable and let them "compete" for their users in an open "market"
environment.  It may very well be that some standards are more adopted
than others in certain industries or in certain types of applications.
Following Matthew's thinking on the matter we would enable users to
leverage (re-purpose) existing and future information systems as value
set providers for UDDI registries.  When and if some standard emerges as
a clear and universal winner, we would then be in a position to accept
it as a favored solution.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: Mary Nishikawa; Daniel L. Koger; Max Voskob; 
> uddi-spec-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Martin Bryan
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec-comment] W3C XML Schema for XTM DTD 
> (Needed for UDDI efforts?)
> > *Max Voskob
> > During the last UDDI meeting we discussed an option of 
> using external
> > representation of taxonomies (it's a UDDI thing) and someone 
> > suggested to 
> > look into XTM. 
> Yes, I suggested that we needed to consider TopicMaps and 
> also the W3C Semantic Web work. I also promise to send a few 
> pointers to the mail list so...
> In the semantic web arena the emphasis is on a Web Ontology 
> Language (OWL), see the references at 
> http://www.w3c.org/2001/sw/#activity.
> Taxonomies are viewed 
> (if I understand correctly) as a simple form of ontology so 
> OWL goes way beyond what we would require (at least initially).
> There's also discussion within the semantic web activities on 
> using OWL and semantic web for service description and 
> discovery (there was a paper on this at the EuroWeb 2002 
> conference but I haven't found an online copy yet).
> TopicMaps can be found at http://www.topicmaps.org (I missed 
> the s in the url I gave during the teleconference).
> And a comparison at 
> http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdfoildaml.html
> My own view is UDDI we should work with external standards 
> rather than invent our own. One issue is that there isn't one 
> standard so we may need a mechanism for working with 
> arbitrary standards and I feel that the tModel mechanism 
> could be used in this context.
> Another issue is whether a static XML feed is really the best 
> way of addressing the issue that Max raised. This may not be 
> applicable for larger or more dynamic taxonomies. As such 
> UDDI may need to work with an taxonomy navigation API (which 
> if a web service could be denoted by a tModel itself - so an 
> taxonomy navigation service might have the signature of a 
> generic tModel for Taxonomy navigation plus tModel for the 
> specific API used - since it is unlikely that there will be 
> one standard API).
> I'll work with Max off-list to see if these ideas can and 
> should be incorporated into his proposal.
> Matthew 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC