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: Re: [uddi-spec] TN/BP or Profile

Think this is actually the more important distinction -- the ebXML RegRep team represents the profiles as normative specifications, and I assume they will promote them to be part of the official OASIS standard. UDDI TNs are not normative, therefore they are perceived as less valid.


On 9/26/05, Luc Clement <luc.clement@systinet.com> wrote:
I for one do have an issue with this. We have a long history of the term along with an agreed to process - see [1] - this in fact predates OASIS. I see no reason to change this at this time as this would only cause confusion within the user community.
Furthermore, I don't see how we could/would ever consider something (effectively normative) as the WSDL-UDDI v2 mapping a "profile"; same goes for any of the TNs we've issued. Our TNs are very specific. They don't offer many degrees of freedom or pick from alternatives (as would a profile) - they are simply "a non-normative document accompanying the UDDI Specification that provides guidance on how to use UDDI registries. While Technical Notes represent the TC's view on some UDDI-related topic, they may be prospective in nature and need not document existing practice."
We should in fact consider elevating the status of some of our TNs to OASIS specs.
I'm afraid I don't see Paul's issue here but am more than happy to discuss during the call tomorrow.
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/process/uddi-spec-tc-process-20021212.htm#_Toc27444265

From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 19:06
To: Paul Denning; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] TN/BP or Profile

I have no problem with adopting the "profile" terminology, and I like the suggestions you've made, but I wonder if this will introduce conflict with those familiar with the WS-I Basic Profile? Anyone have an idea about this?
Tony Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org]
Sent: Sat 24-Sep-05 3:38
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] 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

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.



To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS

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