RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets

["Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>]

Title: Message

Anne,

 

I would like to especially answer your first point. We need a means to limit the number of those requests that want to publish a V2 tModel whose key is derived from a domain-based V3 key since the publication itself needs special actions by a registry operator. The interpretation of the term "well-known" is up to the UDDI Member Section's Steering Committee or the UDDI TC (that's why I added the parenthesized note).

 

Claus

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2003 18:01
To: 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

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