RE: UDDI

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Matt/Waqar,

	Yep, designing interoperability as services is my choice. As Waqar pointed
out, first we need the two-way mapping and then provide these services which
reflect the mapping.

<soapbox>

	Knowing what we know now (;=]) there will be at least two registry
specifications - UDDI and the ebXML regrep. There could be more in the way.
Also we already have clients popping up from various vendors - Bow, IBM, MS
et al. We have to assume that all the registry specifications are developed
by smart people (I know the regrep has smart folks ;-)) and so each will
have it's own advantages. Which means, clients would like to use *all* of
them for different purposes.

	The ideal goal would be that the clients are registry agnostic - i.e. both
registries can handle both clients. So we need a UDDI personality service
layer for the ebXML regrep and an ebXML regrep personality layer/services
for the UDDI registry. Of course, the concept mapping will show the
translation capabilities, synergies and limitations (which could grow as
both the registries mature)

	We sure need to map stuff like the classification in the regrep and the
IdentifierBag and CategoryBag in UDDI. I would like to see a deliberate
matching of API and the data structures so that we know which goes *where*
and *why*. Inevitably there will be gaps and some assumptions, which we can
clarify with the designers like Farrukh and Scott N.

	Developing the services would involve working around the ebXML/SOAP issues
as well.

</soapbox>

	It will be worthwhile to start the UDDI-regrep concepts mapping and data
structure mapping so that we understand the similarities and differences. It
is possible this could raise uncomfortableness in some quarters, but we
cannot ignore the elephant(s) in the room ! If we can get a first cut by the
first week of December, this would help us at the press conference as well.
The UDDI Vs the RegRep question will be asked (by the press) and we need a
decent answer. I hope the answer is interoperability and co-operation.

	Matt/Waqar, if you folks can do the due diligence at the mapping, I could
try developing the interoperable services layer. I am almost thinking of a
decorator pattern where the native pass-thru while the hosted calls get
translated and transformed.

	On a related note, how would we know if a registry is UDDI ? The only way I
can think of is to send an ebXML message and if it throws out the message,
we know it is an UDDI registry !

	cheers and have a Happy Thanksgiving


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:17 PM
To: Krishna Sankar
Cc: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: UDDI


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