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

Re: Words for the Triangles

From: <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200209261824.OAA01131@bual.research.att.com>
To: distobj@acm.org, kreger@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

+1

--mark

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453

	From www-ws-arch-request@w3.org Thu Sep 26 14:09 EDT 2002
	X-UIDL: gmU"!BF6"!Z('"!>&*"!
	Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
	X-Authentication-Warning: mail-red.research.att.com: postfixfilter set sender to www-ws-arch-request@w3.org using -f
	Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
	Resent-Message-Id: <200209261809.g8QI91t03368@frink.w3.org>
	Importance: Normal
	To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
	Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	From: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>
	Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:08:50 -0400
	X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM145/03/M/IBM(Build V60_09122002|September 12, 2002) at
	 09/26/2002 12:08:52
	MIME-Version: 1.0
	Subject: Re: Words for the Triangles
	Resent-From: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/2697
	X-Loop: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Resent-Sender: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
	List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org>
	List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
	List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
	X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=5.0 tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.20






	Warning: long tirade follows:

	Lets be clear here on what it is we are defining.  We are defining a Web
	Services Architetcture.  It is a case of a Service Oriented Architecture.
	There are 3 primary parties in this model.  I'm not suggesting it. I'm
	stating it.

	We have had SOAs before, as Anne has pointed out... both Corba and RMI use
	registries, but you had to know what you wanted and what his name was and
	where its registry was before you could get access to it.

	I think Web services adds to this the ability to find what you want by
	SEARCHING on characteristics and metadata accompanying that service.  This
	is SUCH a good thing for J2EE.

	Here is my experience: the web was not interesting to me or the general
	populace until yahoo, google, and dogpile (my favorite search engine
	aggregator). Why?  Because THEN I could FIND stuff by some search criteria
	or taxonomy.  Before that, there's a 99% chance I don't have the URL for
	what I want or even KNOW who it is that has it.   So what works on the
	web????? FINDING from some CENTRAL thing... and of course there can be many
	many (and there are) central things (also known to some as registries)!
	You have to ask SOMEBODY to find the data!

	Now, how did that central thing get it entries?  They either got registered
	there manually (Yahoo, and MANY others) or the registry crawled the web
	(google and many others) using meta description data at the URL and content
	processing to create its own entries.  (Oh, I know, we don't CALL these
	registries, we call them search engines... but what are they searching???
	the entire web for every query??? Ha! They are searching their own stash of
	URLs..... a registry!) All this applies equally to web services.  Someone
	can register the URL of the WSDL and/or service to a registry with meta
	data - UDDI-ish, or it can crawl looking for WSDLs or WSILs at URLs and
	register the services therein.  UDDI plays the same role as Yahoo for web
	services.

	<tirade>Speaking of which it mystifies me why UDDI triggers all these 'bad'
	vibes because its a 'central registry'... there's certainly NOT only one,
	there will be many and they may federate with each other, or not.  Yet WSIL
	is not percieved as a 'central registry', but, it is within the scope of
	its host. Any list of entities is a 'central' registry for some scope or
	domain.  In either case its a list of WSDL URLs for a domain. There's no
	requirement that they be only in one registry/wsil. The main differentiator
	I see operationally is that WSIL is not searchable and doesn't have higher
	level of descriptions factored in (taxonomy, metadata, business, etc), and
	has a predicable location. UDDI is searchable and entries can be more fully
	described with business, taxonomy, etc.  They are both very usefull for
	their scenarios and essential to the Web services story. If I were writing
	a crawling web services registry (woogle?) I'd certainly be looking for
	WSILs and WSDLs at URLs, I'd also be crawling and harvesting UDDI
	registries I find.  And I cannot imagine why we won't see the emergence of
	'more searchable' service registries in the future that can search on the
	details of WSDL documents.</tirade>

	So, I think that a 'registry' role plays a first class part in a web
	services architeture... just like it does for 'why the web works'.

	Now, just because it place a first class role doesn't mean that its
	required for every single scenario... just like the web. I fully agree and
	in the words that I've submitted I say that the publish/find operations are
	very broadly defined to 'any way you get a wsdl to someone else' and 'any
	way you get a wsdl'... and sometimes a registry is used to facilitate that.
	Just like the web where sometimes you get the URL from someone directly,
	sometimes from searching some registry.  Sometimes you get a WSDL directly,
	sometimes you get it through seaching some registry.

	Either way, we cannot be dismissive of the importance and role of
	registries in the web, or web servics.

	So 'somehow you get a WSDL' isn't crisp enough.
	Its not magic happens here... its what we're here to define.

	Oh boy, I can see the flames lighting up already...

	Heather Kreger
	Web Services Lead Architect
	STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
	kreger@us.ibm.com
	919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572


	Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>@w3.org on 09/26/2002 12:35:47 PM

	Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org


	To:    Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
	cc:    "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject:    Re: Words for the Triangles




	Ugo,

	Maybe so, but it still suggests the three-party model; A wants to
	communicate with B, but is required to go to C in order to get the
	necessary information to do so.

	We know how to enable communication without a registry.  It's not
	difficult.  Let's promote that.

	Thanks.

	MB

	On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote:
	>
	> >I think that UDDI hints at a central registry solution, and putting it
	> >in a sentence such as "the key to reaching this new horizon is a
	> >common program-to-program communication model" definitely pushes in
	> >this direction.
	>
	> Version 3 of UDDI has moved away from the concept of a central registry.
	> UDDI 3 supports multiregistry topologies (which is different than version
	> 2's multinode topologies based on node replication). For more details,
	see
	> UDDI 3 section 8, "Publishing Across Multiple Registries" [1].
	>
	> Ugo
	>
	> [1]
	http://www.uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.00-published-20020719.htm#_Toc12653784

	--
	Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
	Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
	http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 14:25:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT