Re: [Fwd: Fwd: Minutes - face to face meeting Chicago - 13/09/00]

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Dick et al:

I have also reviewed the UDDI stuff and have posted several messages to
this list regarding the subject.  I do agree partially with your view
point.  It is very likely that a trading partner will publish UDDI
compliant information informing other trading partners that they support
an ebXML transaction scenario.  It is also equally possible that an
ebXML TPP may also specify an alternative discovery mechnism calling a
UDDI compliant registry.  It may be possible to build a UDDI/ebXML
superset compliant registry to fullfill both initiatives requirements.  

One thing I would like to request at this time is that we stop calling
this UDDI vs. ebXML and replace it with UDDI AND ebXML.  I think this is
more empowering for both initiatives political objectives.

In technical architecture,  we are debating the idea of replacing the
GUID (Globally Unique ID) acronym with the UDDI UUID (Univerally Unique
ID).  THe UDDI specifically calls up the GUID as an "also called"
equivalent.  

Some caveats:

UDDI uses SOAP.  ebXML has not embraced SOAP as a default protocol for
RPC delivery.  THis may need to be visited on again.  Can an ebXML
compliant message convey that use of SOAP 1.1 is acceptable to both
parties?

Both UDDI and ebXML have maintained that the transport and messaging
should be an agnostic component and needs only to be reliable and
conduct its' duty in the overall infrastructure.  

The UDDI method of "find_tModel" may be synonymous with the ebXML
"find_BP" yet they may both have dissimilar syntax requirements.  We
need to track the differences.  I feel the methods will be the same yet
the implementation and execution may vary.  Interoperability between the
two initiatives may be a simple matter of grabbing the appropriate
classification scheme out of a business profile type document and
invoking the syntax associated with it at run time.  

For this latter methodology,  I would strongly urge both UDDI and ebXML
members to consider the GUIDE approach.  (http://www.xmlguide.org).

My $0.02 CAD worth (about $US 0.015)

Duane Nickull 

Dick Raman wrote:
> 
> I notice a reluctance in members of the StC on the topic of UDDI vs
> ebXML...The proposal I made last week had little or no reaction - also from
> the QR team...Is this a view you guys share?  If so we should start
> pushing...
> 
> Dick
> 
> REMINDER...This was my view.....
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have been studying the UDDI stuff and it appears to me that - apart from
> politics - we could very well work out that there is no conflict between
> UDDI and ebXML.
> The UDDI stuff supports more the 'UDD' but not much the 'I', whereas
> ebXML -let's be fair- mostly ignored the 'Discovery' part...until the SJ
> meeting when we set up the TPAteam.
> In fact we could say that we have concentrated in ebXML on the what Gartner
> calls the "post-contract phase", whereas UDDI concentrates on the
> 'pre-contract phase'.  I know that many in ebXML are of the opinion that the
> ideas of 'open-edi' should be part of the specs, but we have been able to
> come up with a radical approach to the post-contract phase - we have not
> come up with new stuff on the TP discovery part.
> UDDI is here now, and it brings two important players that have been missing
> from ebXML: Microsoft and Ariba.  I think this is an opportunity for all to
> embrace the UDDI initiative (with all its marketing power) and to align it
> with ebXML.  We can now involve Microsoft and Ariba to come up with one
> comprehensive spec to cover both the pre- and post contract phase in B2B
> eCommerce, making UDDI non-proprietary and enhancing ebXML with something
> the world needs also.
> Maybe we can welcome the UDDI people in the TPA team - maybe renaming it to
> UDD Team - and work together in Tokyo.
> 
> Dick Raman
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ebxml-coord-errors@lists.ebxml.org>
> To: 'ebXML Coordination' <ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 4:17 AM
> Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: Minutes - face to face meeting Chicago - 13/09/00]
> 
> > there appears to be no discussion regarding a position on UDDI.
> >
> > do we need to escalate this?
> >
> > --
> > regards
> > tim mcgrath
> > TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> > phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
> >
> >
 As far as total integration - time will tell.