RE: [wsdm] [Disc09/sort of]: Use of UDDI with WSDM.

["Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>]

Fred, this is interesting. Why not, though, simply extend the WSDL tModel to accomodate extra information needed for manageability. May be we are saying the same thing, but I can't be sure :)...

 

What I'm saying is as follows.

 

1) service

 

<businessService>

   (...)

   <bindingTemplates>

      <bindingTemplate>

         (...)

         <accessPoint urlType="EPR">[serialized EPR]</accessPoint>

         <tModelnstanceDetails>

            <tModelnstanceInfo tModelKey="A"/>

            (...)

         </tModelnstanceDetails>

      </bindingTemplate>

      (...)

   </bindingTemplates>

</businessService>

 

2) tModel

 

<tModel authorizedName="..." operator="..." tModelKey="A">

   <name>StockQuote Service</name>

   <description xml:lang="en">

      WSDL description of a standard stock quote service interface

   </description>

   <overviewDoc>

      <description xml:lang="en">WSDL source document.</description>

     <overviewURL>

         http://stockquote-definitions/stq.wsdl

     </overviewURL>

   </overviewDoc>

   <categoryBag>

<keyedReference tModelKey="uuid:C1ACF26D-9672-4404-9D70-39B756E62AB4"

                keyName="uddi-org:types"

                keyValue="wsdlSpec"/>

<keyedReference tModelKey="uuid:??"

                keyName="wsdl-org:markers"

                keyValue="manageable"/> 

   </categoryBag>

</tModel>

 

Then it would cover as follows.

 

CASE I : in-bound manageability

 

Business A

    Service B

        binding 1 -> WSDL (functional + WSDM) + WSDM manageable marker

 

CASE II : out-of-bound manageability, same provider

 

Business A

    Service B

        binding 1 -> WSDL (functional)

        binding 2 -> WSDL (WSDM) + WSDM manageable marker

 

 

CASE III : out-of-bound manageability, different providers

 

Business A

    Service B

        binding 1 -> WSDL (functional)

Business C

    Service B

        binding 1 -> WSDL (WSDM) + WSDM manageable marker

 

 

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

 

---

From: Fred Carter [mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:24 PM
To: Wsdm (E-mail)
Cc: Fred Carter
Subject: [wsdm] [Disc09/sort of]: Use of UDDI with WSDM.

[Disc09]
From management repository to EPR. This is the topic of the thesis that Fred is currently writing as part of his action item to the group...  ;-) Basically, how much do we want to specify about the involvement of registries in MUWS.

Well, what I had signed up for was really use of UDDI for [some of] this information.  At a high level, I think that UDDI as a registry for web services is quite appropriate for use in relating management providers to the web services they manage.  I suspect it is less appropriate for "other" managed objects.  Nonetheless...

The final result for this AI will likely be a tech note shared between the WSDM & UDDI groups.  It is still in a rough form;  this note outlines the basic ideas for purposes of discussion.

As background, [a simplistic overview of UDDI states that] UDDI divides the world into three constituent entity types:  Business entities, business services, and binding templates.  These are arranged in a hierarchy whereby business entities form an organizational unit in which one places business services;  business services, in turn, represent business functions which are available via binding templates. Binding templates generally refer to real endpoints.

The world, as defined above, is described by technical models (or tModels).  There are a number of predefined tModels (for WSDL and its constituent parts, various business categorization forms, etc.), and users can define their own tModels to represent various things.  tModels can be used to describe identity & categorization as well as more detailed things like current state, etc.

For a better description, see the uddi section @ oasis (also available via uddi.org).  Anyway, on to the show...

Proposal Overview

At a high level, we propose to set up a different business entity (or entities) for managability providers.  Where some organization may have a single (or multiple) business entities which contain its collection of services and bindings, another one (or few/many) would be added to contain the management providers.

Within such an entity, each MP would be represented by a business service entry.  Amongst the information available about the MP would be the following:

• A list of the binding templates (i.e. endpoints) for which it provides services,
• The management capabilities it would offer on behalf of said binding
• The resource ID (EPR, whatever) by which to reference the managed service/object

The separation of the managability providers into a separate business entity allows the current usage within the organization of UDDI to continue without significant change;  only those interested in management stuff (to use a technical term) need be concerned with the other entities.

The result of this is that if you want to find the MP for a service, you can query UDDI for services whose category bag contains a reference to a your bindingTemplate.  Having found such a service, it will contain the resource identification for your service w.r.t. the MP in question.  Furthermore, you have the list of capabilities that it can provide (this looks similar to UDDI's WSDL decomposition).


--
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301

1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301