Re: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for ebXML components"

[Keisuke Kibakura <kibakura@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Claus,

Thanks for clarification. It's a good idea and I agree with you.

I produced the second draft of the TN, and will send it soon.
I hope it reflects your suggestion.

Please wait and see my next mail.

Regards,
Keisuke Kibakura

----- Original Message -----
From: "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>
To: "'Keisuke Kibakura'" <kibakura@jp.fujitsu.com>; <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Draft TN: "UDDI as the registry for ebXML compone nts"


> Keisuke,
>
> I am not sure if I now have a better understanding of the intention of the ebXML Specifications
Taxonomy tModel you introduce with the TN.
>
> Once it is used to categorize an abstract specification as being an ebXML specification (the ebXML
Message Service V1.0 Specification is an ebXML Message Service Specification) and twice it is used to
categorize a concrete specification as conforming to an ebXML specification (the standard's body BPSS
is a valid ebXML BPSS instance and the company CPP is a valid ebXML CPP instance).
>
> Since there are three levels of abstraction
>
> 1) ebXML specification type (CPP, MS, BPSS)
> 2) ebXML specification version (CPP 1.0, CPP 2.0, MS 1.0, MS 2.0, BPSS 1.0, BPSS 2.0, etc.)
> 3) concept or implementation that conforms to an ebXML specification version (tModel that represents
a BPSS instance, bindingTemplate that implements a BPSS instance and supports an MS version).
>
> I suggest to more clearly separate these levels and consistently use references between them.
> That means that
> - the ebXML Specification Taxonomy tModel can stay as it is
> - the ebXML Message Service V1.0 tModel can stay as it is
> - tModels for the CPP and BPSS versions should be added that reference the corresponding ebXML
Specification category ("ebXML:CPP" or "ebXML:BPSS") and are typed as "protocol" by using the UDDI
Types category system
> - BPSS instance tModels should refer to the BPSS version tModel instead
> - CPP instance businessServices should refer to the CPP version tModel instead.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Claus