[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a Registry" .......
I would also suggest we consider a technical note using Reg/Rep and WS-BPEL as well. Also a recognized OASIS standard, Reg/Rep has also recently published a WSRP technical note on managing WSRP artifacts (WSRP is also at OASIS) [1]. Thanks. [1] Suggested links (Note particularly [e], [g] and WSRP technical note [j]: [a] [Ann] freebXML Registry version 3.0-alpha2 release http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=385589 [b] freebXML Registry http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net [c] Reference Deployments of freebXML Registry http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/aboutFAQ/About_freebXML_Registry.html#Deployments [d] ebXML Registry 2.1 Specifications (Approved OASIS and ISO Standard) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.1/specs [e] ebXML Registry 2.6 Specifications (Latest preliminary 3.0 drafts) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/8475/ebRIM-2.6.doc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/8476/ebRS-2.6.doc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.5/specs [f] ebXML Registry Technical Committee http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/ [g] Web Content Management using ebXML Registry (XML Europe 2003): http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/xmlEurope2004/xmlEurope2004-webcm-ebxmlrr.ppt http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/xmlEurope2004/xmlEurope2004-webcm-ebxmlrr.sxi http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/xmlEurope2004/04-02-02.pdf [h] Java API for XML Registries http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=93 [i] LDAP, UDDI and ebXML Registry feature comparison matrix http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/tmp/Registry_Capability_Matrix.html [j] Using ebXML Registry to Manage WSRP Artifacts http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/7538/wsrp-pfb-ebxml-tn-draft-05.pdf >Eckenfels: Dannys observation also applies to the 2-party case. It is not very helpfull for external partners to publish your own process. If they want to interface with you, the need the Abstract representation of the Process they have to implement. Of course publishing your opwn process abstrac makes sense in other situations like sharing your engeneering efford. > >I totally agree that this TN should wait of the outcome of the abstract subgroup and the abstrac subgroup should use the "publish in uddi" as a major usecase. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:27 PM >To: Danny van der Rijn >Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec >TC Technical Note - Review Requested > >I don't think Bernd's use case assumes a multiparty scenario. The TN seems >to cover reasonably well the 2 party case; it also seems reasonable to >start with that simple case (since almost everyone understands it) but >eventually we'll want to figure out whether or when a multiparty BPEL would >need to be registered in UDDI. > >Paco >Danny van der Rijn To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > <dannyv@tibco.com cc: > > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical > Note - Review Requested > 08/05/2004 04:19 > PM > >i agree with the sentiment of your note, bernd. however, according to my >reading of the TN, that (multi-party) usage isn't covered. what the travel >agency can register is the abstract BPEL that describes THEIR OWN behavior, >and not a "you implement this" abstract BPEL. >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eckenfels. Bernd >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:54 AM >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC >Technical Note - Review Requested > >Hello Danny, > >for a service provider (i.e. TravelAgency) it makes sense to publish an >abstract BPEL PRocess which describes as a template how a Process of a >TravelAgent has to look like. AbstractBPEL cannot describe the observal >overall process, but it can describe in an abstract way the exepcted >sequence of invocations (and therefore also the offered ports). > >I think the UDDI TN is nearly compelte in that respect, only the wording >"observal state" needs to be changed. > >Also I wonder if the Process Local Name needs to have its own attribut in >the tModel/Bag, but I am not very familiar with UDDI. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:52 PM > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI > Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > as i said in conference today, i am afraid that the UDDI TC is even > more confused about what Abstract BPEL is than we are. other than > pointing out even more strongly the importance of getting our > definition of Abstract BPEL pinned down, i think that this note > should lead us in 2 directions: > > 1) finding out why someone would want to register an Abstract BPEL > with UDDI. > 2) changing the name of Abstract BPEL. this is not the first time > i've seen someone confuse the relationship between Abstract BPEL and > Executable BPEL to conflate it with the relationship between Abstract > WSDL and Concrete WSDL, and unless we change the name, i'm sure it > won't be the last. > > i admit, i haven't read the UDDI proposal referenced in this note, > but i feel pretty safe in my assumption without having read it. > > danny > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Luc Clement > To: drj@us.ibm.com ; jevdemon@microsoft.com > Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org ; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org ; > Karl F. Best ; James Bryce Clark ; Mary McRae ; Tony Rogers > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:58 PM > Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec > TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > Dear WSBPEL Chairs, > The UDDI Spec TC has been working on a "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI > registry" Technical Note (TN) that it would like your input on > before proceeding to ratify this TN. > The TN provides a mapping for publishing BPEL4WS abstract processes > into a UDDI registry. The primary goals of mapping BPEL4WS artifacts > to the UDDI model are to: > 1. Enable the automatic registration of BPEL4WS definitions in > UDDI > 2. Enable optimized and flexible UDDI queries based on specific > BPEL4WS artifacts and metadata > 3. Provide composability with the mapping described in the "Using > WSDL in a UDDI Registry, Version 2.0.2" [1] Technical Note. > We would like to invite the BPEL TC to review and comment on the > document and ask that you assign two or more reviewers. > The TN is posted at the following locations by format: > PDF: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf > > MSWord: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8441/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.doc > > We would appreciate comments as soon as possible but preferably > before 31 Aug 04. Please submit comments: > To: Claus von Riegen, SAP (claus.von.riegen@sap.com), > cc: (UDDI Chairs): luc.clement@systinet.com; > tony.rogers@ca.com > cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Thanks in advance > > > Luc Clément > Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC > Systinet Corporation > Tel: +1.617.395.6798 > > > [1] OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note: "Using WSDL in a UDDI > Registry, Version 2.0.2", > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tns.htm#WSDLTNV2 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]