W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2002

Re: UDDI's UUIDs issue

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:21:20 +0100
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021204162120.GD18666@w3.org>

* Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net> [2002-12-04 08:25-0500]
> So Joel, are you saying that there is no reason to create a uddi: scheme?
> 
> I don't think that Karsten's explanation really addresses the core issue.
> The tModelKey is supposed to be a URI. The current tModelKey is a UUID.
> Although it's a unique identifier, it doesn't give you the ability to GET it
> using simply the ID.

Karsten Januszewski's showed that there is a way to get a tModel using
the existing http: scheme. Therefore, there is no need for a uddi:
scheme.

> I think Paul has proposed that we use an http:// URI rather than invent a
> new uddi: scheme to identify a tModel. The point I was making is that you
> cannot do an HTTP GET on http://[tmodelname] to retrieve the tModel details.
> You have to compose a fairly complicated composed URL (e.g.,
> http://[server_name]/modelDetails.aspx/[uuid]) as decribed by Karsten below.
> 
> If we create a uddi: scheme, I can see the UDDI TC developing a mechanism
> that would allow you to perform a GET on a uddi: URL and retrieve the
> resource.

Creating a new URI scheme is very costly and should only be a last
resort solution. Creating a uddi: scheme as a level of indirection to
do an HTTP GET doesn't seem like a last resort solution to me.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 11:21:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT