[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] RQ 20 & 23 (not 17 & 20)
Ah, the good old should we redo the search interface.
The template base approach is in some ways quite nice from the
perspective of dynamic binding (at runtime) of WebServices.
Unfortunately, most UDDI uses to date deal (I think) currently tend
towards the static binding at programming time so the UDDI interface is
presented to the end user, and the template approach isn't particularly
good for this.
We've had the discussion of having a new query language since v1.0!
Issue 1: we need to support the template based query for backwards
compatibility plus I think for dynamic binding
Issue 2: generic languages like xQuery could be too rich!
My reasoning for this is that a user could use xQuery to specify a query
we may not wish to process (e.g. it is two expensive to do so, or it is
too complex to write an xQuery engine that can process the query - my
impression of about 6 months ago was that no-one had a complete xQuery
implementation - has this changed).
Quick plug here - I have worked on a generic WebService interface for
information retrieval which could be used here (see
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw). Queries (using CQL defined on
these pages) might look something like (making up tModel keys...)
(Name="IBM" OR Name="Microsoft") AND
(uddi:tmodel:classification:industrycode.value>"Computing") AND
type="BusinessEntity"
By being able to determine what "indexes" (name, type, {classification
tModel}.value) can be searched in such a language we have some control
of what are and aren't valid queries.
Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:13 AM
> To: uddi
> Subject: [uddi-spec] RQ 20 & 23 (not 17 & 20)
>
> !!! Please, disregard the previous posting on RQ 17 & 20 !!!
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a rather radical suggestion.
>
> We have RQ20 and RQ 23 that very much relate to each other.
> There are 2 ways of solving the problems they present:
>
> 1. Refine the Find Qualifiers section of the spec and add
> more functionality
> there
> 2. Use xQuery
> 3. Combination of the above
>
> I would suggest to consider xQuery. Not saying it's the ideal
> solution, but
> what it can do pretty much covers all possible search requirements.
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members
> /leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]