Re: [wsrp-pfb] restricting keyNames

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Andre Kramer wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> Your argument is correct when only UDDI is considered but 
> standardizing on key names would have value at the abstract model 
> level and help bridge between registries (e.g. a tool exporting UDDI 
> data to ebXML registry). However, since we are only loosely 
> coordinating publishing across registry technologies, I agree a SHOULD 
> is probably enough.
>
keyNames are not required for interoperability in ebXML Registry and are 
meant only for descriptive purposes. However, given the ad hoc query 
capabilities of ebXML Registry they *MAY* be used in queries though it 
would not be the best way to query for the WSRP artifacts. A better way 
would be to query by Classification which is id based and not name based.

So +1 on not restricting keyNames to specific values.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh

--------------------------------------------------------
Going to Java One 2004 June 28 - July 1?

http://java.sun.com/javaone/

Come see the newly released freebXML Registry 3.0 
at pod 1220 in the Java One Pavilion:

http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net
http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/freebXMLRegistryBrochure.pdf
http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/xmlEurope2004/04-02-02.pdf
	
--------------------------------------------------------


> Regards,
> Andre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2004 16:42
> To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsrp-pfb] restricting keyNames
>
>
>
>
>
> I wanted to follow up on our restring keyNames discussion last thursday.
>
> Currently we restrict some keyValues used in keyedReferences/categoryBags
> to certain values.
> One example is our WSRP Service Type tModel where the keyValue is 
> restriced
> to either "Producer" or "Portlet".
> The question came up whether we should also explicitly restrict the
> keyNames, too.
> In this example the keyName would be "WSRP Service Type".
> I had a discussion with John again about whether or not to restrict them.
>
> The view we had on the keyName is correct. Currently the keyName can be
> viewed as a description of the keyedReference used in a categoryBag.
> This might improve readability of the UDDI structures.
> However the keyName is never used for searches or any other purposes.
> Furthermore there is no possibility to restrict the keyValue inside a
> registry like it could be done in private registries or for the Producer
> Service Reference in UDDI V3.
>
> Therefor it's more a spec language and openness question here.
> Does somebody break interoperability if he doesn't publish the keyName 
> like
> we define it in the tech note?
> I think the answer here is no, since it's never used.
>
> I agree that for convenience all publisher should use our proposed 
> value in
> the tech note.
> Therefor for me it seems to be a SHOULD in spec terms here.
>
> This is already contained in the draft-06 document (5.2.1 and 5.3.1).
> Do you think this is sufficient?
> Is so I would propose to leave it this way.
>
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
>
>         Richard Jacob
> ______________________________________________________
> IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
> Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
> WSRP Standardization Technical Lead
> Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
> Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
>
>
> 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/wsrp-pfb/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>