[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a Registry" .......
Thanks for joining Farrukh! Thanks also for the information regarding implementations. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:08 PM > To: John Evdemon > Cc: Monica J. Martin; Eckenfels. Bernd; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a Registry" ....... > > (Resending after joining wsbpel TC as observer. Thanks for > your consideration.) > > John Evdemon wrote: > > >I'm not sure if anyone has time to work on such a document. > Besides, won't this just distract from the BPEL/UDDI paper? > > > >Who supports Reg/Rep? > > > > > For a partial list of deployments for one specific implementation > (freebXML Registry) please see: > > > http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/aboutFAQ/About_freebXML_Registr > y.html#Deploymentspel > TC > > For a partial of implementations: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=regrep > > Include to that list the following recent additions.... > > -freebXML Registry > http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net > > -Adobe > > -Infravio > > As an outside observer to the wsbpel, I wish to log an > objection to any > special consideration for UDDI over ebXML Registry in the wsbpel TC. > Both UDDI and ebXML Registry are OASIS standards. Further, ebXML > Registry is also an ISO standard (ISO 15000 part 3 and 4). > > -- > Cheers, > Farrukh > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] > >>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:39 PM > >>To: Eckenfels. Bernd; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > >>Cc: Farrukh Najmi > >>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_Registr > >>y.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/xml > >>Europe2004-webcm-ebxmlrr.ppt > >> > >>http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/xmlEurope2004/xml > >>Europe2004-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-pf > >> > >> > >b-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/downloa > >> > >> > >d.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf > > > > > >>> MSWord: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/downloa > >> > >> > >d.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 > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>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/wsbpel/members/le > >> > >> > >ave_workgroup.php. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]