[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
--> TModel for QoS Information Containing Multiple Categories of QoS Attributes=20 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 !=20 Regards,=20 =20 Maud=20 =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: blum@systinet.com [mailto:blum@systinet.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:37 PM=20 To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org=20 Subject: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF=20 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.=20 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).=20 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,=20 - Adam Blum, CTO, Systinet=20 - Fred Carter, architect, Amberpoint=20 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_work= gro up.php. ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C3E4BC.A3BC5840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <title>RE: [uddi-spec] request for item on agenda at next FTF</title> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I have always been very wary of = adding such “live” metadata to UDDI. Trying to describe = things like availability in UDDI can overlap with the support for availability, = workload management etc. in the servers hosting the applications/services. = Similarly, trying to represent service compositions in UDDI overlaps with = flow/process execution systems. Such systems can allow for alternative services = and compensating services so I doubt it would be sufficient to deem every = service inoperable that had a (transitive) dependency on a particular service = that was deemed inoperable.</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>John = Colgrave</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>IBM</span></font></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p> <div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm = 0cm 4.0pt'> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Morgenthal, JP [mailto:JP.Morgenthal@softwareagusa.com] <br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 26 January 2004 = 22:10<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> = uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> FW: [uddi-spec] = request for item on agenda at next FTF</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>All,</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>I would like to = add some additional thought to the work of Adam and Fred. I believe there = is a more generic category of "live" metadata that pertains to the registration, status, and availability of Web Services. QoS is one = such area, but so is application configuration and dependency. For = example, a composite application that binds multiple Web Services into one should = be able to be described in the UDDI in such a way that if one Service is = inoperable, the status of the entire Composite application--through dependency chains--could be deemed inoperable. By capturing a) a category of = data that is marked as volatile and b) a model for capturing the dependency = of one tModel on another. I believe we can accomplish the goals set forth = by Adam and Fred as well as enable a much greater capability for complete management of composite software.</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Regards,</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>JP</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><font size=3D2 = face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</spa= n></font></b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> CAHUZAC Maud / FTR&D / US [mailto:maud.cahuzac@rd.francetelecom.com] <br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, January 23, = 2004 6:05 PM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> blum@systinet.com; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> GARG Shishir / = FTR&D / US<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [uddi-spec] = request for item on agenda at next FTF</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Dear all,</span></font> </p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>We are extremely interested in this topic and we are happy to see Adam joining = the TC. Here are our comments (for Adam and the TC) regarding the different = methods Adam proposed. To us, the best approach seems to be the use of UDDI data structure extensions (see our comments below).</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>--> TModel for QoS Information Pointing to External Resource</span></font> = <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>We agree that this = solution is very limited since the QoS document must be processed to retrieve QoS = information and no UDDI query allows us to get this information.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>We have two questions for Adam: Are there only performance and reliability info = in this XML document or can we find further details about the service QoS (such = as all the metrics listed on the document as well as their units, life = performance info, ...etc) ?</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Also, how this method affect the compliance with the WS-I Basic Profile which = states that a service specification must be describe in a WSDL file = ?</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>--> Multiple Categories for QoS Attributes</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>We think that this = solution is interesting since each service implementation is categorized with its = own QoS parameters.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Of course, as long as you want to categorize at the very maximum a UDDI = entity, you will always have large CategoryBags. It is the same for all types of categorization: for instance, a business, which is established in 30 = different countries, will be categorized with 30 different geographical taxonomy = entries (and that is why taxonomy browsing mechanisms are really important in = UDDI).</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>For this solution, don't you think it would be better to create a QoS Taxonomy, = which entries represent the different QoS metrics (taxonomy entries can be hierarchical with sub-level metrics) and create only one "Categorization" tModel to be used in the CategoryBag = ?</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Our concern here is how to provide users with metrics' unit in the = CategoryBag? (does the ResponseTimeAverge is in second, millisecond, microsecond, = ...?)</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>We guess that, with the progress made on the Semantic side, we could have another Taxonomy for units, and "semantically" make a relationship = between the two taxonomies to provide Metrics and their units at the same time. = But, at the moment, there is no way to do this in UDDI.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>--> Extend the UDDI Data Structures</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>From our perspective, = this method seems to be the best approach. Also, it would help drive adoption to = UDDI V3.0.</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Don't you think that the = data structure extensions could be standardized so that it would avoid the = issue of proprietary extensions? Moreover, we should determine explicitly which = of these standardized extensions are optional or compulsory.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>--> TModel for QoS Information Containing Multiple Categories of QoS = Attributes</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>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.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>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?</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Thank you !</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Regards,</span></font> = </p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Maud</span></font> </p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>From: blum@systinet.com = [<a href=3D"mailto:blum@systinet.com">mailto:blum@systinet.com</a>] = </span></font><br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Sent: Thursday, January = 22, 2004 2:37 PM</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>To: = uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Subject: [uddi-spec] = request for item on agenda at next FTF</span></font> </p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>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. </span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>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). </span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>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.</span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Regards,</span></font> </p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>- Adam Blum, CTO, Systinet </span></font><br> <font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>- Fred Carter, = architect, Amberpoint </span></font></p> <p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of = the OASIS TC), go to <a href=3D"http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/le= ave_workgroup.php" target=3D"_blank">http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/= members/leave_workgroup.php</a>.</span></font></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C3E4BC.A3BC5840--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]