[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: [wsrp-pfb] WSRP UDDI technical note - review requested
On last week's TC meeting, I got an action item to review the WSRP UDDI Technical Note. Please find my feedback below. Thanks, Claus 1) Key value placeholders (page 5, line 21 and usages in the document) For all canonical tModels (those defined by this TN), V3 keys need to be fixed and V2 keys need to be generated. Thus, placeholders are needed, for example, in keyValues that represent WSRP producer service references. 2) Replication of meta-data (page 10, line 19) Replication of meta-data can't be avoided, it can be minimized to a practical extent, as described in item 5 (line 38, same page). 3) tModel publication (page 12, items 1 and 2 / page 15, items 1-3) The publication of the canonical tModels can only be done by the registry provider since the keys need to be maintained. Also, the note on publication to the UDDI (not "Universal") Business Registry (page 12, line 18 / page 15, line 37) is misleading since the tModels still need to be published in local registries. 4) Use of WSRP Service Type tModel (page 12, items 2 and 3 / page 14, line 1). Since the registration and use of the WSRP Service Type tModel for categorizing WSRP Producers is optional, not all producers are categorized accordingly and, thus, not all producers can be found using this categorization, making this categorization almost useless. A requirment level "must" seems appropriate. 5) Conformance to WSDL BP / TN The approach proposed by the TN does neither conform to the WSDL BP (V1) nor conform to the WSDL TN (V2). The accessPoint in a bindingTemplate needs to contain the service network address and, thus, references to WSDL deployment documents (as required on page 13, line 3 / page 14, line 42) are not allowed. 6) Service Description portType The TN refers to metadata that can be retrieved from the "ServiceDescription PortType", but does not define an approach on how the portType itself can be retrieved (line 1, page 15 / line 6, page 17). Can't a simple approach be added? 7) Use of WSRP Producer Service Reference (page 18, item 2) Since the registration and use of this categorization is optional, there is a similar problem as in issue #4 above. 8) UDDI V3 keys (page 19, line 13 / page 20, line 17 / page 22, line 4 / page 23, line 13) The UDDI V3 keys are invalid. They MUST have a prefix "uddi:" and MUST NOT contain "/". The current approach seems to introduce several layers of key generators. An alignment with the UDDI TCs ideas on how to manage (OASIS-specific) key generators seems to be useful. 9) Validation of WSRP Service Type tModel (page 19, line 16) As discussed earlier for the WSDL and BPEL TNs, the WSRP Service Type tModel can be categorized as being "checked". 10) WSRP v1 Bindings tModel This tModel's categorization (page 20, line 19) should be "specification", "xmlSpec", "wsdlSpec", and "soapSpec". Validation of Web service types (tModels of type "specification") is out of scope. Thus, line 20 on page 20 and section 6.2.3 on page 21 can be removed. In order to conform to the WSDL TN V2, a separate tModel for the portType and a corresponding reference from the binding tModel is needed. 11) Validation of WSRP Producer Service Reference tModel Since the tModel is based on serviceKeys, it is automatically checked. Line 7 on page 22 should be changed accordingly. 12) Valid values of WSRP Portlet Handle tModel There is no information on what a syntactically valid PortletHandle is. Please elaborate or refer to corresponding WSRP specification. 13) Private UDDI Registries Considerations No need for this section. Please remove. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Richard Jacob [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Juli 2004 17:32 An: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Betreff: [wsrp-pfb] WSRP UDDI technical note - review requested Dear UDDI TC members, the WSRP TC has been working on a WSRP UDDI tech note. It defines a model for publishing WSRP Producers and Portlets to UDDI registries, and describes some sample queries. The WSRP TC has entered the 1st review of the technical note lasting until the end of our F2F on August, 6th. We would like to invite the UDDI TC to review and comment the document. You should be able to retrieve the PDF version here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-pfb/download.php/7671/wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-08.pdf and the MS Word version: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-pfb/download.php/7672/wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-08.doc Since we would like to discuss the issues on our F2F, 2nd-6th August we would ask you to provide feedback until the 31st July. Please send in comments to the WSRP TC mailing-list email@example.com. I will be listening on the uddi-spec list, too. Thank you in advance. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________ IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development WSRP Standardization Technical Lead Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 Email: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org 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/wsrp-pfb/members/leave_workgroup.php.