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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

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

Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Namespace management (corrected spelling)


It could certainly make for an interesting discussion, particularly
since it is substantiated by specific client references.  We do have
UDDI managing WSDL registrations and there is really nothing technically
preventing anyone from, say, registering process specifications or
schema references in UDDI using tModels (other than that there are no
use cases or guidance for doing so in a uniform and recognizable way).

In terms of business content, I - and UnitSpace - see UDDI already being
a registry of content *services*; these services are where business
information entities can be discovered, retrieved and managed.  But
there is a difference between maintaining service metadata and business
content.  Extending UDDI to perform business content management would
require substantial, though probably backwards-compatible, changes to
the information model and the API's.  My fear is that most business
content has a different profile that metadata with regard to security,
applicable operations, functional role and target users, although that's
debatable and perhaps a plausible alignment other than proposed above
("UDDI is a registry of content services, which in turn manage content")
is possible.

I guess it would be helpful to understand more specifically what is
being proposed for discussion.  My questions to Max therefore are:
1. What sort of information artifacts are you referring to?
2. Specifically, what are the attempted multiple purposes of using UDDI
that you came across?

Best regards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Voskob [mailto:mvoskob@msi.com.au] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:52 PM
> To: uddi-spec
> Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Namespace management (corrected spelling)
> Matthew,
> That's the problem. UDDI is being considered by many as a 
> registry of informational artifacts for an enterprise. I'm 
> one of them. :) And UDDI is almost there! It's got a huge 
> potential, much more potential then any competing standard at 
> the moment. All we need is a little effort to get the 
> external taxonomies going and probably add a couple more 
> minor features without changing the concept. On the other 
> hand I can't see the consensus amongst the members to 
> rephrase the purpose of UDDI.
> I personally came across quite a few cases where 
> organisations (incl. NZ Gov, OZ Gov) were seriously 
> considering UDDI as a multi-purpose registry. They did so not 
> from misunderstanding of UDDI, but from seeing a great 
> potential in the standard and its implementations.
> I would suggest to include it in the agenda of one of the 
> upcoming telecons and discuss it openly, if the other TC 
> members are interested, of coz.
> Cheers,
> Max
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
> To: "Max Voskob" <mvoskob@msi.net.nz>; "uddi-spec" 
> <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Namespace management (corrected spelling)
> This sounds like the problem space that metadata registries 
> and ISO 11179 aim to address (see 
> http://www.schemas-forum.org/ for a EU project in this area).
> I'm pretty sure that this isn't a question that UDDI has 
> attempted to tackle. I'm not entirely sure whether it is a 
> question that UDDI should tackle - my undertanding is that 
> UDDI is a directory of WebServices rather than a universal 
> directory for everything Web/WebService related (but that's 
> just my opinion)
> Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> <snip>
> Imagine an organisation where 25 departments are creating 
> different XML documents and formalise them with all sorts of 
> documentation including XML Schemas. How do they ensure that 
> the new namespace ID they've just come up with is not already 
> used somewhere else within the organisation? Sure, they can 
> write a 25 page guide how to name their namespaces (if they 
> can't they email me and I'll write one for them :), but it's 
> hard to reinforce anyway.
> <snip>
> Can one do it using available UDDI means at the moment?
> I don't think so, but I can be wrong. Please correct me.

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] | [List Home]