uddi-spec message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] AR019 Completed - Update of v2 tModels in preparationfor submission of V2 as an OASIS Std.
- From: Luc Clement <lclement@microsoft.com>
- To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:36:15 -0800
Title: Message
Anne was kind enough
to provide input on the v2 tModels. She identified mostly typos, but
there are a couple of questions that need to be addressed. I've posted the
updated documents that provide Anne's questions and my answers. Anne identifies
the following inconsistency:
I just looked at the
tModel and questioned the use of identifier. I'm not convinced that
isReplacedBy is always a one-to-one relationship. I can imagine that a single
tModel might replace more than one previous version, or that an earlier
version tModel might get replaced by two (e.g., a UDDI/WSDL V1 mapping tModel
would be replaced by two or more tModels representing portType and multiple
bindings.)
I've discussed this
with Claus and we came to the following conclusion. Earlier this year when we
changed the type of the owningBusiness tModel from "identifier" to
"categorization" based on Claus' request, we realized the very same
inconsistency that Anne now talks about. At that time we (the UDDI Working
Group) agreed to NOT change the type of the isReplacedBy tModel - but the reason
for the decision was mainly based on timing.
We propose to not
change it now either (even when it would be more consistent) since we
also would have to change the specification. The tModel overviewDocs are
supplementary material and should simply be consistent with the specification -
which they now are.
Anne, if you think this
warrants it, please submit a spec change request for
v2.
I've posted the marked up
documents as Word docs and the revised html version at the following locations.
Please review and be prepared to vote on accepting these at our 9 Jan
telecon.
Luc
(FYI - I won't be replying to
mail until 7 Jan when I return from
vacation)
UDDI Registry tModels:
UDDI Other Core tModel
Replication tModels
Taxonomy tModels
As
usual, a sharp eye. Updates made and available
at:
Hi Luc,
The
text of the UDDI Operators Taxonomy tModel (in the Taxonomy tModels doc) still
reads:
Section 9.1: "UDDI provides a mechanism that may be
used by publishers to identify businessEntities according to any number of
identification systems. (See UDDI Version 2 API Specification [1] and UDDI Version 2 Data
Structure Reference [2] for more information on how to
use identitification systems in UDDI.) This section defines a tModel used to
identify a businessEntity as belonging to a node operator in a registry in which
the businessEntity appears."
Section 9.1.1: "Each UDDI registry -- e.g., the
public UDDI Business Registry -- consists of a number of operator nodes. Each
operator in a registry has a special businessEntity associated with it, called
its "operational businessEntity". The businessServices in this businessEntity
represent web services that relate to the operator's role as one of the
operators in the registry. The validate_values services used with checked
taxonomies and identifier systems, for example, are located in the operational
businessEntity of the registry node operator who has custody of them.
The uddi:operators identifier system is designed to allow
reliable identification of the registry's "operational businessEntities" so that
operators and others can locate the businessServices associated with the
operators of the registry.
This checked value set is used to categorize the
businessEntity of a UDDI operator. Each such businessEntity SHOULD be
categorized with the uddi-org:operators
taxonomy."
And
should be changed to read:
Section 9.1: "UDDI provides a mechanism that may be
used by publishers to categorize
businessEntities according to any number of category
systems. (See UDDI Version 2 API Specification [1] and UDDI Version 2 Data
Structure Reference [2] for more information on how to
use category systems in UDDI.) This section defines a tModel
used to categorize a businessEntity as belonging to the group
of node operators in a registry in which the businessEntity
appears."
Section 9.1.1: "Each UDDI registry -- e.g., the
public UDDI Business Registry -- consists of a number of operator nodes. Each
operator in a registry has a special businessEntity associated with it, called
its "operational businessEntity". The businessServices in this businessEntity
represent web services that relate to the operator's role as one of the
operators in the registry. The validate_values services used with checked
taxonomies and identifier systems, for example, are located in the operational
businessEntity of the registry node operator who has custody of them.
The uddi:operators category system is designed to
allow reliable categorization of the
registry's "operational businessEntities" so that operators and others can
locate the businessServices associated with the operators of the
registry.
This checked value set is
used to categorize the businessEntity of a UDDI operator. Each such
businessEntity SHOULD be categorized with the uddi-org:operators
taxonomy."
I hope that's it
so far ...
Claus
-----Original
Message-----
From: Luc Clement [mailto:lclement@microsoft.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2002 16:19
To: Von Riegen,
Claus; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] AR019
Completed - Update of v2 tModels in preparation for submission of V2 as an OASIS
Std.
Thanks for picking
these up. See inline.
I've updated the following
tModels accordingly:
- UDDI Registry tModels:
- Taxonomy tModels
Luc
Hi Luc,
I am
sure that I have read the documents once before, but I now have found
some technical issues (most of them are minor ones) as
follows.
UDDI
Registry tModels
- Section 1.4 (Example of Use) uses the "urn:uddi-org:api_v2" namespace
although it is an example for a UDDI V1 inquiry (should be
"urn:uddi.org:api").
[LC] fixed
- Section 2.4 (Example of Use): the XML fragment is not valid.
"<businessKey>BK1....</busienssKey>" should be
changed to "<businessKey>BK1....</businessKey>".
[LC] fixed
- Section 3.3.1.1 (tModel structure): the tModel description currently
says "This tModel defines the publication API calls for interacting with
the UDDI registry." It should better say "This tModel defines the
publication API calls for interacting with a V1 UDDI
node."
[LC] Agree -
fixed
- Section 3.4 (Messages covered) should be numbered 3.3.2 - in analogy to
the other sections.
[LC] fixed
- Section 3.5 (Example of Use) is then numbered 3.4. Also, the
"<save_binding generic="2.0"
xnkbs="urn:uddi-org:api_v2">" is
inconsistent and makes use of V2 behavior, which is not what the example
should show. A change to "<save_binding generic="1.0"
xmlns="urn:uddi-org:api">" should work.
[LC] Agree -
fixed
- Section 4.3.1.1 (tModel structure): the tModel description
currently says "This tModel defines the publication Version 2 API calls for
interacting with the UDDI registry." Since there is not
only one UDDI registry, it should better say "This tModel defines the
publication API calls for interacting with a V2 UDDI
node."
[LC] Agree -
fixed
- Section 4.4
(Example of Use) currently says "The following is a typical
addPublisherAssertiions message ..." and should be changed to
"The following is a typical addPublisherAssertions message ...".
[LC] fixed
- Section
6.3.1.1 (tModel structure): the tModel description currently says "This tModel
defines the taxonomy maintenance Version 2 API calls for
interacting with the UDDI registry." This should be
changed to read "This tModel defines the taxonomy validation API calls for
interacting with a V2 UDDI node."
[LC] Agree -
fixed
Taxonomy tModels
- Section 7 (UDDI OwningBusiness Identifier System): We obviously missed
to update this document when we decided to change the tModel type from
"identifier" to "categorization" as can be seen by section 13.1.2.7
of the UDDI V2.04 API Specification. Thus, the whole section
should be updated by replacing "identifier" with "categorization" and changing
the text accordingly. Further, section 7.3.2 (Valid Values) should be
updated so that it reflects the specified behavior: "The value set of
this taxonomy is the set of businessKeys. It is used to specify that the
businessEntity whose businessKey is the keyValue in a keyedReference "owns"
the tagged tModel. The entity tagged must be a tModel, the referred-to
businessEntity must exist, and it must have been published by the publisher
that publishes the tagged information."
[LC] GOOD CATCH! I'd forgotten about that 2.04 erratum.
Agree and updates made.
- Section 9 (UDDI Operators Identifier System) should be updated similar
to section 7, since the tModel's type was also changed from "identifier"
to "categorization" and the only valid value is "node" (instead of the
businessKeys of the operators).
[LC] Again, good catch. Agree and updates
made.
Claus
In accordance with our discussion at the 20021203
telecon, Toufic Boubez and I took AR019 (http://oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/process/UDDI-TC-ARList.htm). Our task was to cleanup each of the following v2
tModels:
- UDDI Registry tModels
- UDDI Other Core tModel
- Replication tModels
- Taxonomy tModels
The changes that were made was to add a tModel
structure definition to each of the tModels; correct the overviewURLs of some;
and reconcile the categorization of the tModels with those of the tModel
structure definitions.
This AR has been completed. Draft Word (includes
revision marks) and HTML document versions of the tModels has been posted for
review at the following locations:
- UDDI Registry tModels:
- UDDI Other Core tModel
- Replication tModels
- Taxonomy tModels
Please review and provide comment by close of
business Tue 17 Dec. This is necessary to allow Tom and I to proceed to submit
the "V2 package" to the OASIS board for vote as an OASIS Standard.
Luc Clément
Microsoft
Co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec
TC
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC