OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: TN/BP or Profile


UDDI has used the terms "Technical Note (TN)" and "Best Practice 
(BP)" to talk about ways of using UDDI in a consistent manner.

The OASIS ebXML Registry TC has a similar concept, but they call them 
"Profiles".

This difference in terminology for the same basic concept can be confusing.

I get the feeling that some people consider an ebReg "profile" 
somehow more legitimate or formal than a UDDI TN/BP.

I think they are equal.

Using different terminology seems to be used as a way to 
differentiate ebREg from UDDI and make ebReg look more suitable for 
enterprise deployments.  There are other differences besides Profile 
vs TN/BP, but when ebReg says that they have profiles for this or 
that, it somehow sounds like UDDI does not have something equivalent 
or as formal.   Some people looking to compare and contrast UDDI and 
ebReg may ask "does UDDI have an XYZ profile like ebReg?"  The answer 
may be "yes, but we call it an XYZ TN".

Where am I going with this?

I propose that the UDDI Spec TC adopt the term "profile" as a 
replacement for TN and BP.

The boiler plate for a UDDI Profile could say something like "UDDI 
profiles provide technical notes and best practice for using UDDI."

Another motivation for this proposal is that the term "profile" is 
used quite a bit by the US DoD, who is my customer/sponsor.  People 
tune-in when the word "profile" is used more so than TN/BP.

Historically, a standards profile has referred to additional 
constraints associated with implementation of a standard.  Standards 
that have been developed by committees sometimes include options that 
are included as a way of reaching consensus within the committee.  A 
profile of such as standard may be developed by a vertical industry 
or some other organization.  For example, WS-I has a Basic Profile 
that specifies constraints on the use of SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI with 
the goal of better interoperability.  Profiles may provide a way of 
defining a standard "subset" of a broader standard.

ebReg and the proposed UDDI profiles would be a little different in 
that these specs provide some basic building blocks.  The idea of a 
profile in this context is not to identify fewer building blocks 
(standard subsets), but it is to document one arrangement of the 
building blocks to solve a particular problem in a consistent 
way.  If people publish to a registry in a consistent manner, then 
queries to search for those things can be simpler.  Nonetheless, the 
term "profile" is being used in a more or less consistent way when 
compared to the historical use of the standards "profile".

Some other advantages of both ebReg and UDDI using the term "profile" 
include serendipitous discovery.  People searching Google (for 
example) for "profile" (and some other terms) may get a few hits for 
UDDI documents mixed in with ebXML profiles if "profile" is adopted 
as a replacement for TN/BP.  That person may have known about ebReg, 
but may have not known about UDDI.  Without UDDI using the term 
"profile", these UDDI hits may not have shown up in the search 
results, and that person would not have known about UDDI.  Likewise, 
someone who knows about UDDI. but not ebXML may search for "profile" 
and may learn about ebXML.

I don't think ebReg TC is going to change to using TN/BP terminology.

OASIS may want to consider adopting a general policy to use the term 
"profile" when talking about subsets or ways of using (and extending) 
OASIS standards.

Comments?

Paul




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]