TModel for QoS Information Containing Multiple Categories of QoS

[Luc Clément <luc@iclement.net>]

Maud - there are two posting that where not redistributed to the list but ended up on the archive - I believe these are from you.

Reposting - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200401/msg00088.html

Subject: [no subject]

---

--> TModel for QoS Information Containing Multiple Categories of QoS
Attributes
With this solution, we still have the issue of providing metrics' units
within the CategoryBag of the QoSInformation tModel even though this
information can be easily found in the WSDL file.

We know it is too late to open a debate on it and please bear with us for
the following comment :) We just have a little concern about the use of WSDL
in UDDI and probably you can help us to clarify our thoughts: Usually, a
tModel represents a reusable concept. In this solution, if the
QoSInformation tModel is categorized with the QoS metrics of a particular
service, it is tight to this service and this is not what a tModel is meant
to be. We thing that a tModel should be as generic as possible, representing
a specific concept/protocole/taxonomy (such as QoS information) but it
should not include any information that are bound to one service. What do
you think? Are we wrong or did we misunderstand the method?

Thank you !
Regards,

Maud

-----Original Message-----
From: blum@systinet.com [mailto:blum@systinet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:37 PM
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF

We would like to propose that a technical note be created for how to store
web services management information in UDDI. Specifically we think that
common quality of service metrics such as average performance, reliability,
throughput and availability should be easily available in consistent
locations in enterprise registries of web services. We believe that this has
great value for customers in providing predictable places to store and
search for such information to supplement the information about specific
physical implementations of web services, beyond what is natively available
on bindingTemplates.  We also believe that having such standard ways of
accessing this information enhances the value of web services management
solutions for customers as there becomes a wider use of the QoS information
beyond just the management tool software itself. This includes the ability
for developers to use this information in search and browsing for
appropriate web service instances to use in a given situation. 

We would like to involve as many web services management vendors in drafting
a recommendation on how and where to store such information. We have posted
a rough draft proposal for one possible method of doing such storage (and
several other alternatives are presented therein). 

We are interested in discussing this at the February 10-12 Face to Face in
San Francisco. It would be great if we could somehow get on the agenda for
this meeting.    Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Regards,

- Adam Blum, CTO, Systinet 
- Fred Carter, architect, Amberpoint 

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_workgro
up.php.