RE: [uddi-spec] FW: UDDI's UUIDs issue

[Andrew Hately <hately@us.ibm.com>]

The idea that the registry presents
a particular and complete and reliable set of the data in response to find_**
APIs makes it very difficult to decentralize the UDDI data.

The number of unresolvable URIs for
the discovery data returned by search engines listed below are an example
of what happens when discovery is decentralized.   An unreliable discovery
system is, in my opinion, not suitable for any machine processing.

The third party aggregation model can
still be built on a centralized system to provide more efficient query
capability than that provided by the UDDI find_** APIs, but the intention
is that the UDDI find_** API and subscription API can help build those
systems on a particular registry's or registries' data set.

Andrew Hately
IBM Austin
UDDI Development, Emerging Technologies 
Lotus Notes: Andrew Hately/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Internet: hately@us.ibm.com
(512) 838-2866,  t/l 678-2866

Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>

12/04/2002 01:13 PM

To	Andrew Hately/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc	Uddi-Spec <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [uddi-spec] FW: UDDI's UUIDs issue

Hi Andrew,
 
Thank you for your extensive response. I
still have the impression that it does not completely address Paul's point:
 
> UDDI ... should be a decentralized system
where
> everybody controls their own information and anybody can become an
> aggregator of the information. examples of Web data aggregators include
> AltaVista, Google, Meerkat and Yahoo. 
 
What exactly prevents the third party aggregation
model proposed above from being applied to UDDI?
 
Thank you,
Ugo