Re: UDDI

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Krishna,

I propose that the UDDI functionality be implemented as a service unto itself, just
like the ebxml regrep, via a new ServiceInterface.  Is that going in the wrong
direction?  I would be hesitant to map existant ebxml regrep actions directly to UDDI,
because the UDDI API is well defined and scoped.  The ObjectQueryManager
ServiceInterface could be used with the addition of some UDDI specific actions...

Comments?

-Matt

Krishna Sankar wrote:

> Hi,
>
>         For the Vancouver POC, I have proposed and if it get approved, plan to work
> on an interoperable suit for UDDI and ebXML Registry. We have some interest
> from Scott H of IBM as well.
>
>         The idea is to demonstrate a two way interoperability - UDDI client using
> the ebXMl RegRep and an ebXML Registry client using the UDDI registry. This
> exercise will bring out the synergies and differences between the two as
> well.
>
>         my 2 yens !
>
>         cheers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@xmlglobal.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:05 PM
> To: Waqar Sadiq
> Cc: 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org'
> Subject: Re:
>
> Waqar,
>
> We have been playing with UDDI since it became public, and just a few days
> ago
> I suggested internally at XMLGlobal that bridging UDDI to ebXML would be
> relatively trivial assuming that the UDDI registry is complete, which it is
> (test.uddi.microsft.com).  All that would have to be done is to build an
> object
> sort of like
> the ObjectQueryManager object that this group has specified, except into
> would
> be called UDDIQueryManager, and it's methods or actions would correspond to
> the
> UDDI find and store methods, such as find_business, store_Tmodel, etceteras.
> This object would accept payload and invocation requests over ebXML TRP, and
> dispatch the queries on the UDDI registry either remotely with SOAP, or
> locally
> with a client library, and send the response back using TRP.
>
> example query and response:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/related; version=1.0; boundary=**bound**
> Content-Length: 2286
>
> --**bound**
> Content-Type: application/vnd.eb+xml; version=1.0
> Content-Description: ebxmlHeader
> Content-ID: 0
> Content-Length: 1466
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <ebXMLHeader MessageType="Normal"
>    Version="1.0">
>    <Manifest>
>       <DocumentReference>
>          <DocumentLabel>find_binding_req</DocumentLabel>
>          ...
>      </DocumentReference>
>     </Manifest>
>     ...
>     <TPAInfo>
>         <ServiceInterface>UDDIQueryManager</ServiceInterface>
>         <Action>find_binding</Action>
>     </TPAInfo>
>     ...
>   </ebXMLHeader>
>
> --**bound**
> Content-Type: application/xml; version=1.0
> Content-Description: find_binding_Req
> Content-ID: 1
> Content-Length: 324
>
> <find_binding serviceKey="uuid" generic="1.0" maxRows="99"
> xmlns="urn:uddi-org:api">
>    <findQualifiers/>
> </find_binding>
> --**bound**--
>
> ... and the response would have the uddi response XML body in the payload.
> It
> may make sense to modify the ObjectQueryManager to handle UDDI requests
> internally to itself, I am more partial to simply bridging ebxml and UDDI
> right
> now.  The UDDI API is very straight forward and is very useful for discovery
> of
> trading partners and processes.  I saw a really neat demo at the UDDI
> workshop
> in Redmond of UDDI integration with a procurement app (Great Plains) that
> made
> good use of this API and registry, I very much hope that we can work the
> UDDI efforts into ebXML, and would be willing to elaborate further toward
> that
> end.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> Waqar Sadiq wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I know that their is an effort going on in the transport team to map ebXML
> > transport layer to other protocols.  I feel that a similar effort in the
> > RegRep team may be a worthwhile effort.  More specifically, I think that
> we
> > should try to map ebXML to UDDI.  I wouldn't be surprised if some members
> > have already gone through that effort and in that case sharing of the
> > results would be great.
> >
> > I realize that everybody is pretty busy with other more core issues.
> > However, I personally feel that UDDI and ebXML will both survive alongside
> > each other and a mapping will strengthen the two specifications.  It will
> > also reveal conflicts between the two standards sooner than later.
> > Currently both specifications are in the process of being defined and they
> > can be changed to align with each other.  Later on, it will be difficult.
> >
> > While ebXML defines a UML based information model, UDDI does not define
> such
> > a model.  So if we decide to undertake this, I will be perfectly happy to
> > construct and provide the UDDI model.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Waqar Sadiq