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

["Luc Clement" <lclement@windows.microsoft.com>]

Title:

Inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:03
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Tom Bellwood'; Luc Clement
Cc: 'Anne Thomas Manes'
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC, UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets

Tom, Luc,

UBR's Terms of Use do not cover publishers' metadata, which, in fact, may be an erroneous omission arising out of miscommunication between technical and legal staff.  It only talks about publishing information about businesses, whereas tModels, as you know, are not part of a business description (only, potentially, a reference to a tModel is).

[LC] I'm intimate with the Terms of Use and policies of the UBR. The current terms of use and UBR policies (e.g. http://uddi.microsoft.com/policies/default.aspx) satisfy the specific needs. Please also note that the Terms of Use and UBR policies are in the process of being updated and I'll ensure that the concerns you bring forward are reassessed in light of what is being proposed. That said, as it stands, I don't see any blocking issues that would stop or delay proceeding further.

Also, unless the status of UBR is established within its relationship to UDDI Member Section, wouldn't it be strange that the SC only promulgates tModels that are published in the UBR?  I guess nothing stops the SC from making this decision (it's SC's choice after all what tModels to promulgate), but it just might appear arbitrary to some casual observers.

[LC] No, not at all IMO. The UDDI v3 spec already identifies the UBR as an example of a root registry. That, and the pages on UDDI.org (e.g. http://uddi.org/register.html) only reinforce the existence of an albeit informal and loose relationship between "UDDI" as embodied by the Member Section and this TC, and the "UDDI Business Registry".  

Perhaps being published in the UBR should be made one of the formal eligibility criteria for tModels to be published on UDDI.org.

[LC] I agree with your suggestion, though at first, I was inclined not to make it a requirement. So far, a number of postings have suggested the desire for this which I think is the right thing to do. While this may become the TCs recommendation, the Member Section's Steering Committee will have to agree with this.

Daniel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Bellwood [mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:48 PM
> To: Daniel Feygin
> Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Anne Thomas Manes'
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Use of UDDI.org as a means of promoting TC,
> UBR, Std Group and Consortium tModels and Value Sets
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think Luc answered this adequately.  We don't need a legal
> relationship with the UBR.  Their Terms & Use are  already adequate
> for our member section's needs, I think.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Bellwood       Phone:  (512) 838-9957 (external);   TL:  678/9957
> (internal)
> Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC
> STSM - Emerging Technologies
> IBM Corporation
>
> "Daniel Feygin" <feygin@unitspace.com> on 05/15/2003 02:12:31 AM
>
> To:    <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>, Tom Bellwood/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:    "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>
> 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 see a potential problem with using the UBR in that there is no legal
> relationship between the TC or the UDDI Member Section and the UBR OC. 
> It would be useful to establish such a relationship, covering the
> status of the UBR and the terms under which the TC and/or the Member
> Section publish to the UBR.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Bellwood [mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:58 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
> >
> >
> >
>