RE: Words for the Triangles

Yes, I think this was identified about the description stack before...
we are missing a layer for 'busines description' and taxonomy

Some of this info may be part of service instance specific properties
described by policy,

But the data we wrap wsdl with to publish in UDDI needs to be captured in a
UDDI agnostic way
since it is a general requirement.

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

<> on 09/26/2002 03:28:04 PM

To:    Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:    <>
Subject:    RE: Words for the Triangles

Hi Heather,

Nice rants. Questions below following from your statements:

>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.

>  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

This begs the question what is sufficent metadata to satisfy query needs?
UDDI (and ebXML?) has more queryable metadata than WSDL. Should this extra
service metadata be captured by our architecture? Should the metadata
query language be standardized or specified? Maybe at the top triangle
abstraction it is not needed to detail the 'find' and 'publish' arcs.
the Description slide doesn't have a placeholder for metadata as you
illustrated in your 'Yahoo' comparison. Unless you think the WSDL box
'Interface Description' is sufficiently broad to capture queryable


Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 19:14:05 UTC