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

RE: UDDI's UUIDs issue

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:11:59 -0500
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPCEPHCNAA.anne@manes.net>

Well for one thing, an http: URI lends the impression that you might be able
to perform an HTTP GET to get the resource identified by the URI. But you
can't do an HTTP GET on, say for example, a tModelKey. Currently, the only
way to get the resource identified by a uddi: scheme is to issue the proper
UDDI Inquiry API (e.g., get_tModelDetails). At some point in the future
(maybe UDDI V4) the API might be extended to allow you to do something like
a UDDI GET.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:42 PM
> To: Mark Baker; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: UDDI's UUIDs issue
>
>
>
> I raised exactly this issue at the UDDI F2F last week, and I was
> given a list of reasons why the existing http scheme would not
> adequate (reasons that sounded good to me at the time, but whose
> details I have unfortunately forgotten).
>
> If the WSA WG wants to officially investigate this issue, I can
> ask the UDDI people who worked on version 3 under UDDI.org to
> prepare a list of rationales for the WSA WG that explain why a
> new URI scheme was necessary.
>
> Ugo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UDDI's UUIDs issue
>
>
> In this context, the "good practice" suggestion of the TAG to avoid
> using new URI schemes when existing ones would suffice (in this case,
> the "http" scheme would suffice), is also important, I believe;
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:56:35PM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > While going through the latest architecture doc draft, I
> noticed that 5.1, Identifiers, has an issue about the UUID
> identifiers used by UDDI. I think I can add some information that
> can at least partially clarify the issue.
> >
> > Starting with version 3, the UDDI spec requires that all keys
> be expressed as URIs (see [1]). It also recommends that the URI
> scheme "uddi" be used. The UDDI TC plans to formally register
> this new URI scheme in the near future. It is still possible to
> use UUID-based identifiers, but they have to be wrapped in a in a
> "uddi:" URI format.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> > [1] http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.00-published-20020719.htm#_Toc12653651
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.   http://www.markbaker.ca
>
>    Will distribute objects for food
>
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 19:10:01 GMT

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