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)


The information artifacts can be almost anything, e.g., XML schemas,
documentation, sample XML documents, WSDL files, namespace identifiers,
documents for ebXML (CPP, CPA, etc), XML Topic Maps files, taxonomies, etc,
etc, etc.

Web services do not exist on its own. If the webservice is as simple as RPC
then it's easy, but what if it's a complex one?
Let's say "CreateCustomer" web-service when a complex XML document is passed
onto the web-service and an even more complex XML document is returned back.
Those documents may contain a dosen of infosets from different namespaces
and so on.
Another example is a popular 360 degree view of customer information
(basically any information) where all entities are described using XML
Schemas and linked together to form one enterprise- / government- /
industry- / national - wide framework. (see the attached picture)

Take for example an e-Government. They adopt or produce schemas for
election, name, address, etc. These schemas, again, form a framework.

The framework components are registered in the registry and stored
elsewhere. If I have a NS identifier I go to the registry and find
everything that relates to that NS ID, including the schema, documentation
for the schema, sample XML files, who wrote it, who use it, what status of
each document is and all sort of other crucial information.

All those information artifacts still relate to web-services. For example, a
WS A recieves an XML document with 3 different namespaces. The web service
can deal with 2 only and then has to pass the document to another web
service for processing. The WS A looks up the registry to find the
webservice by at say NS ID and get all the binding it needs to call it.
I think there can be a hundred of other runtime interaction example.

Web-services do not come on their own. They depend on many other information
artifacts that may be required for their processing at runtime or
development (design time). Speaking of the multiple purposes I mean that for
private registries the content cannot be limited to just "business" and
"service". It is much broader than that.

Customers want to have one registry for all artifacts and do not spread the
$$$, time and effort across UDDI for WS, ebXML registry for schemas and
other stuff, Tibco for something else and so on. Customers want one registry
to rule them all.

Sorry, I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly. Please, let me know if it's
still confusing.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Feygin" <feygin@unitspace.com>
To: "'Max Voskob'" <mvoskob@msi.net.nz>; "'uddi-spec'"
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:36 AM
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Namespace management (corrected spelling)

> Max,
> 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,
> Daniel
> > -----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]