[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets
Tom, I agree that it would be much more convenient to use UBR, but how can you "certify" an individual tModel? Business assertions exist between business entities, not between a business entity and a tModel. (Unless I'm missing something...) Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Bellwood [mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 3:58 PM > To: Anne Thomas Manes > Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, > UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets > > > > > > > Hi Anne, > > I think I mostly agree with your first point, in that we shouldn't be so > particular, although I still think that if we're going to essentially > advertise these tModels at the TC level, we have some obligation to insure > that they are not frivilous. > > As for your second point, you have the right idea about creating > a business > relationship in the registry to essentially "certify" that the tModel has > been approved by the TC. That's about the only way to address > the issue in > an open V2 implementation. What you've got wrong is that there's no way to > do it or that it is somehow unsupported. This is a basic V2 feature, and > the UBR fully supports it. I still believe that the UBR is the best place > for this information to go. It is the most publicly recognized UDDI > implementation of which I am aware that is intended for use by all, and it > is still inexorably linked to our TC. I would suggest that our TC use it > to its best advantage in this case. Setting up and operating a > high-availability registry is not a cheap thing to do. Spending our TC's > resources to essentially duplicate what we already have available seems > wasteful to me. > > Thanks, > Tom Bellwood Phone: (512) 838-9957 (external); TL: 678/9957 > (internal) > Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC > STSM - Emerging Technologies > IBM Corporation > > "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> on 05/14/2003 11:00:49 AM > > To: <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> > cc: > Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, > UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets > > > > > Claus/all, > > I'm really pleased to see this moving along so quickly. But I have a > couple of concerns. > > 1- This statement makes me a bit uneasy: "The announcement of tModel > availability is limited to tModels that represent a well-known concept > and/or are owned by a well-known standards group or consortium (note that > “well-known” may be limited to an industry, a geographical > region or other > contexts)." > > I wouldn't want to restrict this effort to "well-known" > consortia. I think > it's quite reasonable for a local SIG to develop a useful value set and > propose its public availability. I would prefer that we define a public > process that permits anyone to make a proposal. If a standards group > submits a proposal that applies to its specific industry segment, we > should accept it without question once we've verified that it is a > well-formed value set. If the proposal has cross-industry application or > if it has been submitted by an individual or informal group, then we > should evaluate it and solicit comments and input -- the same way that we > would handle a proposed technical note. > > 2- I'm also very hesitant to use the UBR as the repository for these > "approved" value sets. It's very difficult to distinguish valid > information from test/junk information in the UBR. There's no way of > indicating in the UBR that a tModel has been "approved", and I > don't think > it's appropriate to require a user to view a page on the UDDI.org member > section page to determine the status of a tModel in the UBR. You would > need the equivalent of a business assertion between a business entity > representing the UDDI-spec TC and the approved tModel -- but that's not > supported. That's why I recommended a separate UDDI registry operated by > the UDDI.org members as the registry of record. I think it's appropriate > to require that the value set first be registered in the UBR as part of > the application process, but once the tModel has been "approved", it > should be registered in the UDDI .org member registry. > > Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:28 AM > To: 'Luc Clement'; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, > Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets > > > Luc, > > Thanks for your proposal. I believe that it is important and already well > structured. > I took the liberty to work out the details of your Prototype page. Please > find an updated page attached. > > Claus > -----Original Message----- > From: Luc Clement [mailto:lclement@windows.microsoft.com] > Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2003 02:45 > To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std > Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets > > > (Apologies for my last and premature mail) > > A few meetings ago, the topic of where to post non-normative tModels came > up in a discussion; we never concluded this discussion. I'd like > to revive > it and obtain your input on the following. > > Background > As some of you may know, during the course of the v3 spec development, we > removed from the spec those tModels and value sets that were not > considered appropriate to make normative in favour of having the UDDI > Business Registry (UBR) to manage these. They include the following: > 1 UDDI Business Registry Value Set tModels: Category System, Identifier > Systems and Categorization Groups > > 1.1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 1997 Release > 1.2 United Nations Standard Products and Services Code System (UNSPSC) > Version 7.3 > 1.3 ISO 3166 Geographic Code System > 1.4 ISO 3166 Code Derivation for Business Locations > 1.5 ISO 3166 and UNSPSC Code Group System > 1.6 World Geodetic System 1984 > 1.7 WGS 84 Latitude Code System > 1.8 WGS 84 Longitude Code System > 1.9 WGS 84 Altitude Code System > 1.10 Geographic Precision Code System > 1.11 UDDI Business Registry Postal Address Structure > 1.12 Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® Number Identifier System > 1.13 Thomas Register Supplier Identifier Code System > 1.14 ISO 6523 International Code Designator (ICD) System > > 2 UDDI Business Registry Core tModels > > 2.1 Domain Key Generator for the UDDI Business Registry Domain > 2.2 UDDI JIS X 4061 Japanese sortOrder qualifier > The UBR's Operator's Council is currently in the process of reviewing > these tModels in support of its UDDI v3 deployment work. This topic is > long overdue. > TC, Standards Groups and Consortium Needs > As we've discussed and continue to encounter, the TC, other standards > groups and consortium need a place where they can collect and promulgate > the existence of their tModels and value sets (e.g. WSDL v2 TN, ebXML TN, > etc). > Proposal > The UBR Operator's Council is considering asking the UDDI Steering > Committee to post UBR tModels on UDDI.org. At the same time, the > OC discussed the need/desire for the TC/Consortium to have a > similar forum > and thought that we should consult the TC. > > To this end, the OC has created a prototype page to be added to the > UDDI.org site; please find it attached. The prototype suggests the > addition of a "Common tModels" navigation link which displays the content > of the attached. > > Please review this prototype. This matter will be put on the agenda for > the next TC call. > Action Required > A. The OC is soliciting your support and interest for this; while it can > proceed independently from the TC, it would be best to coordinate this. > > B. We need to discuss the criteria for what gets published on the page; I > would expect the Steering Committee to be the gate keeper but they would > require guidance from the TC on matter of criteria > > As a next step once we complete this discussion and if the TC is > favourable to posting such information, the next step would be for the TC > (and the OC) to make a request to the UDDI-SC asking for this content to > be posted. > > For your consideration. > > Luc > > > Luc Clément > Microsoft > Co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec TC > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]