Tony,
If by “access to the definition of
the taxonomy” you mean the same OWL file(s) that were loaded into the
registry, then yes. The protection is in the (lack of) distribution of
the OWL files.
I think that just having a standard
representation of ontologies/taxonomies is a huge step forward and I agree that
it is better that we take this first necessary step rather than get mired down
in the less important requirements.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Tony
[mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: 17 May 2004 23:00
To: John Colgrave; John Colgrave;
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec]
Conference call on Taxonomy browsing/navigation requirements
That's understandable, albeit a little disappointing.
I suppose we must then assume that the client GUIs will use access to
the definition of the taxonomy to create the GUI browsing. Not ideal, because
it doesn't fit with the original idea of protected access to the IP-controlled
taxonomies, but...
Better we get the first part of the problem addressed, than none of it.
-----Original
Message-----
From: John Colgrave
[mailto:colgrave@hursley.ibm.com]
Sent: Mon 17-May-04 22:35
To: 'John Colgrave';
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec]
Conference call on Taxonomy browsing/navigation requirements
This call will not take place after all, as only two
people have said that
they would attend.
My current view is that I will omit from my proposal the single priority 2
requirement for a browsing/navigation API, and keep the management
capabilities to the minimum, assuming that a client/tool will offer similar
taxonomy management capabilities to a UDDI registry. I will try and get
this proposal out this week.
We can then have the debate in the context of the full proposal.
John Colgrave
IBM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Colgrave [mailto:colgrave@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: 12 May 2004 12:33
> To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [uddi-spec] Conference call on Taxonomy browsing/navigation
> requirements
>
> As discussed yesterday, I will be hosting a call next Tuesday, May 18th,
> to
> discuss the taxonomy browsing/navigation requirements. The call will
be
> at
> the same time as the main TC call.
>
> Please let me know by the end of this week if you intend to participate,
> and
> from which country you expect to dial in, and I will send out the call
> details next Monday.
>
> The only requirement we have at the moment is a priority 2 requirement,
> namely "Support for navigational API inquiry (show me successors,
show me
> predecessors, to some specified depth level)".
>
> See my note [1] for the details of my concerns in this area.
>
> I hope that at the end of this call we will have decided what, if
> anything,
> we want to support in this space.
>
> If you cannot make the call but have an interest in this topic, please
> make
> sure that you send your comments to the list before the call.
>
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200405/msg00000.html
>
> John Colgrave
> IBM
>
>
>
>
> 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.
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.
|