Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

UDDI

Expand Messages
  • jeffrschneider
    Let s say I went out and bought the new version of SAP and it exposed 3,084 services. How do I get these in my UDDI registry?
    Message 1 of 10 , May 2, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Let's say I went out and bought the new version of SAP and it exposed
      3,084 services. How do I get these in my UDDI registry?
    • Anne Thomas Manes
      Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available. Some of the commercial registries provide registration utitlities. For example, Systinet has a
      Message 2 of 10 , May 3, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.

        Some of the commercial registries provide registration utitlities. For
        example, Systinet has a utility called wsdl2uddi. Feed it a stack of
        WSDLs, and it will register them all for you automatically in
        compliance with the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry v2" technical note.
        This utility is also available interactively via the Systinet Registry
        consoles. I believe that this utility will work with other UDDI
        registries, although I haven't tried it. The utility is a web service,
        and you simply configure the UDDI access URLs. In any case, you can
        download the Systinet Registry in trial mode and give it a try...

        SOA Software also provides a visual WSDL mapping wizard, although I
        don't know if it's available as a batch utility. (They provide
        registration capabilities through an SDK, but I don't know if exposes
        the WSDL mapping wizard.)

        IBM provides a visual WSDL mapping wizard, but I believe it is only
        available through the Web Services Explorer tool for Eclipse. My
        understanding is that the only programmatic API is the JAX-RPC API,
        and it doesn't support WSDL mapping.

        Blue Titan also supplies a console-based visual registration wizard
        and a SOAP API. (Blue Titan Registry isn't UDDI compliant, though.)

        Infravio provides a console-based visual registration wizard and a JAXM API.

        Any one of the small companies would be very happy to create a batch
        registration wizard for you if the sale depended on it.

        Anne


        Anne

        On 5/2/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@...> wrote:
        > Let's say I went out and bought the new version of SAP and it exposed
        > 3,084 services. How do I get these in my UDDI registry?
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • jeffrschneider
        ... What I m hearing is that there is no standard batch upload facility for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating feature. No big deal - but
        Message 3 of 10 , May 5, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Anne Thomas
          Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
          > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.

          What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload" facility
          for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating feature. No
          big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking around.

          The second concern would be how to batch upload entries according to a
          predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
          you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and identify if
          the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).

          My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
          platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the option
          of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
          just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
          Jeff
        • Anne Thomas Manes
          You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn t specify a batch load utility. One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC) is that the core spec
          Message 4 of 10 , May 5, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn't specify a batch load utility.
            One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC)
            is that the core spec shouldn't define usability information -- it
            only defines normative behavior. All usability information is defined
            in separate technical notes (such as the "Using WSDL in a UDDI
            Registry" technical note). The TC has define 3 technical notes
            regarding the creation, management, and versioning of user defined
            taxonomies (now called "value sets" in V3). Right now they're working
            on a set of security related technical notes. I don't recall the TC
            discussing batch load processing (but I'm not nearly as involved in
            the TC as I once was). If you think it's an important topic for a
            technical note, send a note to the uddi-spec-comment list.

            It's possible that SAP and other application vendors may provide a
            prepopulated registry, but the challenge with this approach is that it
            doesn't give the customer the ability to model its organizations --
            you want to be able to indication which organization offers which set
            of services. Perhaps they might want to provide a registry that's
            prepopulated with tModels, but I think the company will want to
            register their own businesses, services, and binding templates. I
            think it's more likely that the app vendors will provide a batch of
            SOAP messages which can be processed by any registry.

            Any UDDI registry can process a batch of UDDI SOAP messages. No
            additional specification or technical note is required to enable this
            much.

            As far as enabling batch loading when using custom value sets -- if I
            were doing it, I would write my own utility. First, I'd annotate my
            WSDLs with the value set information, then extend a wsdl2uddi utility
            to automatically map the WSDL annotations to catagory bags. You might
            take a look at what LogicLibrary has done. They can capture any
            properties they've captured in Logidex and map it to UDDI. Currently
            they use the general_categories taxonomy to map the properties, but I
            suspect it's customizable.

            Anne

            On 5/5/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@...> wrote:
            > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Anne Thomas
            > Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
            > > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.
            >
            > What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload" facility
            > for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating feature. No
            > big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking around.
            >
            > The second concern would be how to batch upload entries according to a
            > predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
            > you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and identify if
            > the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).
            >
            > My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
            > platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the option
            > of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
            > just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
            > Jeff
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Radovan Janecek
            I believe this kind of utilities should remain out of the scope of the UDDI specification. Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies
            Message 5 of 10 , May 10, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe this kind of utilities should remain out of the scope of the
              UDDI specification.

              Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies (we
              use our own proprietary taxonomy schema and we are considering owl for
              future). The registry can also import/export uddi data - this can be
              used for batch processing - but this feature is not documented and it
              is used by our professional services only. In 6.0 (June) we will open
              this api as well.

              Cheers,
              Radovan

              Radovan Janecek, VP of Engineering
              Systinet Corporation
              http://www.systinet.com
              http://radovanjanecek.net/blog


              On 5/5/05, Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@...> wrote:
              > You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn't specify a batch load utility.
              > One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC)
              > is that the core spec shouldn't define usability information -- it
              > only defines normative behavior. All usability information is defined
              > in separate technical notes (such as the "Using WSDL in a UDDI
              > Registry" technical note). The TC has define 3 technical notes
              > regarding the creation, management, and versioning of user defined
              > taxonomies (now called "value sets" in V3). Right now they're working
              > on a set of security related technical notes. I don't recall the TC
              > discussing batch load processing (but I'm not nearly as involved in
              > the TC as I once was). If you think it's an important topic for a
              > technical note, send a note to the uddi-spec-comment list.
              >
              > It's possible that SAP and other application vendors may provide a
              > prepopulated registry, but the challenge with this approach is that it
              > doesn't give the customer the ability to model its organizations --
              > you want to be able to indication which organization offers which set
              > of services. Perhaps they might want to provide a registry that's
              > prepopulated with tModels, but I think the company will want to
              > register their own businesses, services, and binding templates. I
              > think it's more likely that the app vendors will provide a batch of
              > SOAP messages which can be processed by any registry.
              >
              > Any UDDI registry can process a batch of UDDI SOAP messages. No
              > additional specification or technical note is required to enable this
              > much.
              >
              > As far as enabling batch loading when using custom value sets -- if I
              > were doing it, I would write my own utility. First, I'd annotate my
              > WSDLs with the value set information, then extend a wsdl2uddi utility
              > to automatically map the WSDL annotations to catagory bags. You might
              > take a look at what LogicLibrary has done. They can capture any
              > properties they've captured in Logidex and map it to UDDI. Currently
              > they use the general_categories taxonomy to map the properties, but I
              > suspect it's customizable.
              >
              > Anne
              >
              >
              > On 5/5/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@...> wrote:
              > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com,
              > Anne Thomas
              > > Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
              > > > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.
              > >
              > > What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload" facility
              > > for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating feature. No
              > > big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking around.
              > >
              > > The second concern would be how to batch upload entries according to a
              > > predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
              > > you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and identify if
              > > the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).
              > >
              > > My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
              > > platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the option
              > > of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
              > > just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
              > > Jeff
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              --
              Radovan Janecek
              http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
            • goodoleibmguy
              This sounds painful. Comments below. ... Why not? Everything else on the planet even remotely feasible w/ UDDI is already in the 400+ page UDDI spec.
              Message 6 of 10 , May 10, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                This sounds painful. Comments below.

                --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Radovan
                Janecek <radovan.janecek@g...> wrote:
                > I believe this kind of utilities should remain out of the scope of the
                > UDDI specification.

                Why not? Everything else on the planet even remotely feasible w/ UDDI
                is already in the 400+ page UDDI spec. Alternatively, it could be
                described in one of the dozens of TNs (Technical Notes) that are
                already being layered on top of this monolith!!!

                >
                > Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies (we
                > use our own proprietary taxonomy schema and we are considering owl for
                > future).

                "Proprietary taxonomy schema". Ouch!!!

                The registry can also import/export uddi data - this can be
                > used for batch processing - but this feature is not documented and it
                > is used by our professional services only. In 6.0 (June) we will open
                > this api as well.

                "Professional services accessible" API double ouch. I give you credit
                for being honest. I guess these "pure UDDI-based" Registry Server/SOA
                Governanace products are still pretty proprietary.

                >
                > Cheers,
                > Radovan
                >
                > Radovan Janecek, VP of Engineering
                > Systinet Corporation
                > http://www.systinet.com
                > http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                >
                >
                > On 5/5/05, Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                > > You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn't specify a batch load utility.


                > > One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC)
                > > is that the core spec shouldn't define usability information -- it
                > > only defines normative behavior. All usability information is defined
                > > in separate technical notes (such as the "Using WSDL in a UDDI
                > > Registry" technical note). The TC has define 3 technical notes
                > > regarding the creation, management, and versioning of user defined
                > > taxonomies (now called "value sets" in V3). Right now they're working
                > > on a set of security related technical notes. I don't recall the TC
                > > discussing batch load processing (but I'm not nearly as involved in
                > > the TC as I once was). If you think it's an important topic for a
                > > technical note, send a note to the uddi-spec-comment list.
                > >
                > > It's possible that SAP and other application vendors may provide a
                > > prepopulated registry, but the challenge with this approach is that it
                > > doesn't give the customer the ability to model its organizations --
                > > you want to be able to indication which organization offers which set
                > > of services. Perhaps they might want to provide a registry that's
                > > prepopulated with tModels, but I think the company will want to
                > > register their own businesses, services, and binding templates. I
                > > think it's more likely that the app vendors will provide a batch of
                > > SOAP messages which can be processed by any registry.
                > >
                > > Any UDDI registry can process a batch of UDDI SOAP messages. No
                > > additional specification or technical note is required to enable this
                > > much.
                > >
                > > As far as enabling batch loading when using custom value sets -- if I
                > > were doing it, I would write my own utility. First, I'd annotate my
                > > WSDLs with the value set information, then extend a wsdl2uddi utility
                > > to automatically map the WSDL annotations to catagory bags. You might
                > > take a look at what LogicLibrary has done. They can capture any
                > > properties they've captured in Logidex and map it to UDDI. Currently
                > > they use the general_categories taxonomy to map the properties, but I
                > > suspect it's customizable.
                > >
                > > Anne
                > >
                > >
                > > On 5/5/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@h...> wrote:
                > > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com,
                > > Anne Thomas
                > > > Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                > > > > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.
                > > >
                > > > What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload"
                facility
                > > > for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating
                feature. No
                > > > big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking
                around.
                > > >
                > > > The second concern would be how to batch upload entries
                according to a
                > > > predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
                > > > you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and
                identify if
                > > > the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).
                > > >
                > > > My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
                > > > platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the
                option
                > > > of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
                > > > just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
                > > > Jeff
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
                > >
                > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > > service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                > --
                > Radovan Janecek
                > http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
              • luclclement
                You might also want to check out http://www.systinet.com/doc/wasp_uddi-55/html/index.html?dev_guide/dev.wsdlapi.html. Systinet Registry WSDL-to-UDDI exposes
                Message 7 of 10 , May 11, 2005
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  You might also want to check out
                  http://www.systinet.com/doc/wasp_uddi-55/html/index.html?dev_guide/dev.wsdlapi.html.

                  Systinet Registry WSDL-to-UDDI exposes this facility as a registry
                  service which that implements the "Using WSDL in a UDDI registry
                  Version 2.0" OASIS UDDI TC's Technical Note. It enables the automatic
                  publishing of WSDL into the registry (both UDDI v2 and v3) and allows
                  for full categorization of the businessEntity, businessService and
                  bindingTemplate elements.

                  Sample code is also provided on the page.

                  Luc

                  --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Anne Thomas
                  Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                  > You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn't specify a batch load utility.
                  > One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC)
                  > is that the core spec shouldn't define usability information -- it
                  > only defines normative behavior. All usability information is defined
                  > in separate technical notes (such as the "Using WSDL in a UDDI
                  > Registry" technical note). The TC has define 3 technical notes
                  > regarding the creation, management, and versioning of user defined
                  > taxonomies (now called "value sets" in V3). Right now they're working
                  > on a set of security related technical notes. I don't recall the TC
                  > discussing batch load processing (but I'm not nearly as involved in
                  > the TC as I once was). If you think it's an important topic for a
                  > technical note, send a note to the uddi-spec-comment list.
                  >
                  > It's possible that SAP and other application vendors may provide a
                  > prepopulated registry, but the challenge with this approach is that it
                  > doesn't give the customer the ability to model its organizations --
                  > you want to be able to indication which organization offers which set
                  > of services. Perhaps they might want to provide a registry that's
                  > prepopulated with tModels, but I think the company will want to
                  > register their own businesses, services, and binding templates. I
                  > think it's more likely that the app vendors will provide a batch of
                  > SOAP messages which can be processed by any registry.
                  >
                  > Any UDDI registry can process a batch of UDDI SOAP messages. No
                  > additional specification or technical note is required to enable this
                  > much.
                  >
                  > As far as enabling batch loading when using custom value sets -- if I
                  > were doing it, I would write my own utility. First, I'd annotate my
                  > WSDLs with the value set information, then extend a wsdl2uddi utility
                  > to automatically map the WSDL annotations to catagory bags. You might
                  > take a look at what LogicLibrary has done. They can capture any
                  > properties they've captured in Logidex and map it to UDDI. Currently
                  > they use the general_categories taxonomy to map the properties, but I
                  > suspect it's customizable.
                  >
                  > Anne
                  >
                  > On 5/5/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@h...> wrote:
                  > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Anne Thomas
                  > > Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                  > > > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.
                  > >
                  > > What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload" facility
                  > > for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating feature. No
                  > > big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking around.
                  > >
                  > > The second concern would be how to batch upload entries according to a
                  > > predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
                  > > you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and identify if
                  > > the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).
                  > >
                  > > My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
                  > > platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the option
                  > > of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
                  > > just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
                  > > Jeff
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • Radovan Janecek
                  ... Exactly because adding every usecase into the spec would create the monolith you are refering to. Today, UDDI is not monolithic. The main value of UDDI
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 11, 2005
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > > I believe this kind of utilities should remain out of the scope of the
                    > > UDDI specification.
                    >
                    > Why not? Everything else on the planet even remotely feasible w/ UDDI
                    > is already in the 400+ page UDDI spec. Alternatively, it could be
                    > described in one of the dozens of TNs (Technical Notes) that are
                    > already being layered on top of this monolith!!!

                    Exactly because adding every usecase into the spec would create the
                    monolith you are refering to. Today, UDDI is not monolithic. The main
                    value of UDDI lies in _interoperable_ API to a registry/repository
                    service - not in defining all possible scenarios of how registry can
                    be used and what tooling could be available on top of that.

                    > > Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies (we
                    > > use our own proprietary taxonomy schema and we are considering owl for
                    > > future).
                    >
                    > "Proprietary taxonomy schema". Ouch!!!

                    Sure proprietary - there is no standard for it! As I have said, we are
                    considering OWL now. But when we started (our registry supports
                    taxonomies for a long time) with it, OWL was unusable and there were
                    no toolkits for it.

                    > "Professional services accessible" API double ouch. I give you credit
                    > for being honest. I guess these "pure UDDI-based" Registry Server/SOA
                    > Governanace products are still pretty proprietary.

                    Every governance product is proprietary. My experience is that every
                    governance deployment is so customer specific that professional
                    services are almost like a feature of the product. UDDI-based products
                    though have one big advantage: you can really access the data from
                    visual studio, MS Office, Eclipse, Systinet, IBM, etc - they all
                    provide standard clients. Moreover, if the information published in
                    registry/repository comply with other standards/specifications (e.g.
                    WS-Policy, OWL, etc.) then you have even broader interoperability.

                    That's why we introduced the Governance Interoperability Framework.
                    And there is no doubt Systinet excells in interoperability [2].


                    Radovan

                    [1] http://systinet.com/products/gif/overview

                    [2] http://radovanjanecek.net/blog/archives/000217.html

                    >
                    > >
                    > > Cheers,
                    > > Radovan
                    > >
                    > > Radovan Janecek, VP of Engineering
                    > > Systinet Corporation
                    > > http://www.systinet.com
                    > > http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On 5/5/05, Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                    > > > You are correct. The UDDI spec doesn't specify a batch load utility.
                    >
                    >
                    > > > One of the core principles of the UDDI-spec technical committee (TC)
                    > > > is that the core spec shouldn't define usability information -- it
                    > > > only defines normative behavior. All usability information is defined
                    > > > in separate technical notes (such as the "Using WSDL in a UDDI
                    > > > Registry" technical note). The TC has define 3 technical notes
                    > > > regarding the creation, management, and versioning of user defined
                    > > > taxonomies (now called "value sets" in V3). Right now they're working
                    > > > on a set of security related technical notes. I don't recall the TC
                    > > > discussing batch load processing (but I'm not nearly as involved in
                    > > > the TC as I once was). If you think it's an important topic for a
                    > > > technical note, send a note to the uddi-spec-comment list.
                    > > >
                    > > > It's possible that SAP and other application vendors may provide a
                    > > > prepopulated registry, but the challenge with this approach is that it
                    > > > doesn't give the customer the ability to model its organizations --
                    > > > you want to be able to indication which organization offers which set
                    > > > of services. Perhaps they might want to provide a registry that's
                    > > > prepopulated with tModels, but I think the company will want to
                    > > > register their own businesses, services, and binding templates. I
                    > > > think it's more likely that the app vendors will provide a batch of
                    > > > SOAP messages which can be processed by any registry.
                    > > >
                    > > > Any UDDI registry can process a batch of UDDI SOAP messages. No
                    > > > additional specification or technical note is required to enable this
                    > > > much.
                    > > >
                    > > > As far as enabling batch loading when using custom value sets -- if I
                    > > > were doing it, I would write my own utility. First, I'd annotate my
                    > > > WSDLs with the value set information, then extend a wsdl2uddi utility
                    > > > to automatically map the WSDL annotations to catagory bags. You might
                    > > > take a look at what LogicLibrary has done. They can capture any
                    > > > properties they've captured in Logidex and map it to UDDI. Currently
                    > > > they use the general_categories taxonomy to map the properties, but I
                    > > > suspect it's customizable.
                    > > >
                    > > > Anne
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > On 5/5/05, jeffrschneider <jeffrschneider@h...> wrote:
                    > > > > --- In
                    > service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com,
                    > > > Anne Thomas
                    > > > > Manes <atmanes@g...> wrote:
                    > > > > > Good question. It depends on the tooling you have available.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > What I'm hearing is that there is no standard "batch upload"
                    > facility
                    > > > > for UDDI; hence vendors will use this as a differentiating
                    > feature. No
                    > > > > big deal - but something the OASIS people are probably kicking
                    > around.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The second concern would be how to batch upload entries
                    > according to a
                    > > > > predefined taxonomy that is internal to the organization. I guess
                    > > > > you'd have to have some tool prompt you for each entry and
                    > identify if
                    > > > > the entry was superceding a prior entry (ick).
                    > > > >
                    > > > > My guess is that the SAP's of the world will just package their
                    > > > > platform with a pre-populated UDDI registry. Then, you have the
                    > option
                    > > > > of replicating their UDDI instance to the "UDDI system of record" or
                    > > > > just doing federated queries. Thoughts?
                    > > > > Jeff
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ________________________________
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > > >
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
                    > > >
                    > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > > >
                    > service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > > >
                    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > Radovan Janecek
                    > > http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    --
                    Radovan Janecek
                    http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                  • Paul Denning
                    ... [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200408/msg00054.html [2]
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 11, 2005
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 05:40 AM 2005-05-11, Radovan Janecek wrote:
                      > > > Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies (we
                      > > > use our own proprietary taxonomy schema and we are considering owl for
                      > > > future).
                      > >
                      > > "Proprietary taxonomy schema". Ouch!!!
                      >
                      >Sure proprietary - there is no standard for it! As I have said, we are
                      >considering OWL now. But when we started (our registry supports
                      >taxonomies for a long time) with it, OWL was unusable and there were
                      >no toolkits for it.

                      [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200408/msg00054.html
                      [2]
                      http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/document.php?document_id=12218

                      [1] is the latest document I've seen from the UDDI Spec TC on using OWL for
                      taxonomies (value sets).
                      Recent TC minutes [2] seem to have dropped it as a TN, so it looks like it
                      could still be handled as a v.Next spec proposal.

                      Paul
                    • Radovan Janecek
                      Yes, our OWL thinking is in the context of UDDI TC. ... -- Radovan Janecek http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 12, 2005
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, our OWL thinking is in the context of UDDI TC.

                        On 5/11/05, Paul Denning <pauld@...> wrote:
                        > At 05:40 AM 2005-05-11, Radovan Janecek wrote:
                        > > > > Anyway, Systinet Registry provides for export/import of taxonomies (we
                        > > > > use our own proprietary taxonomy schema and we are considering owl for
                        > > > > future).
                        > > >
                        > > > "Proprietary taxonomy schema". Ouch!!!
                        > >
                        > >Sure proprietary - there is no standard for it! As I have said, we are
                        > >considering OWL now. But when we started (our registry supports
                        > >taxonomies for a long time) with it, OWL was unusable and there were
                        > >no toolkits for it.
                        >
                        > [1]
                        > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200408/msg00054.html
                        > [2]
                        > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/document.php?document_id=12218
                        >
                        > [1] is the latest document I've seen from the UDDI Spec TC on using OWL for
                        > taxonomies (value sets).
                        > Recent TC minutes [2] seem to have dropped it as a TN, so it looks like it
                        > could still be handled as a v.Next spec proposal.
                        >
                        > Paul
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        --
                        Radovan Janecek
                        http://radovanjanecek.net/blog
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.