From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:44
AM
To: 'Service-Oriented
Architecture CoP'
Subject: [soa-forum] The purpose
of a SOA demo
Joe,
Excellent article at
http://www.ebxmlforum.net/articles/ebFor_20030824.html
It would seem that you, Cory, Andrew,
Farrukh and Rex have positions (regarding registry and repository) that are
very close and saying (for various good reasons) that ebXML should interoperate
with UDDI because it can and because of the previous market adoption of
UDDI. You are also saying (I conjecture) that there is no other
“registry/data definition” standard that needs to be
considered?
The exception is ontology representations
which I believe there is an agreement that ebXML, but not UDDI, allows an
interface to any
1) description logic
2) object oriented model like UML or (say) SOA-IM (from Semantion)
3) RDBMS type data definitions (and SQL)
4) N-ary ontology as still theoretical work, or in same case (NdCore
from www.apptechsys.com , other
“semantic extraction ontology internal representations)
Is this fair and proper to
say? Do all concur?
Note that I am explicitly placing (part
of) “data definition” into the “repository”
technology. But an OWL ontology would not be in the repository, if I have
a proper understanding of ebXML repository concept. I assume that
there is no misunderstanding.
As we will see, the core issue that is not
talked about is how are data definitions created.
Is there re-use, granularity, agility,
composition?
Where is the origin of design?
Do IT community design the web-services or
do a (perhaps) more full native stakeholder (non-IT business person, government
policy maker, natural scientist) use a methodology to define natural needs and
means to respond to a request for assistance?
Is the demo you all are contemplating
IT-centric, and/or does it really matter?
One may take the position that how data
definitions (in the broadest scope) come about could be examined more carefully
from a knowledge management type position (ie not a pure IT perspective …
having more of a business centric methodology perspective – as in OASIS
BCM 2004).
This leads to the notion of a choice
point, when the user is given an informed opportunity to make a decision based
on (to a large extent) non-IT issues. Often this goes to the nature of
purpose.
Yes, the purpose of a web service can be
defined, and in fact one can work hard to show some degree of agility,
composition, re-use and granularity. But is there a common dimension to
natural social interaction that is not present in the proposed
demo?
Is this important, if there is a
difference?
This is the service part of the SOA, where
“service” is not sameAs “web-service”, but is in fact a
naturally occurring interaction type between human and human communities.
The choice points can be / are where the design of web services occur. I
would suggest that ebXML does not fully realize this possibility. Perhaps
this is where a new discussion, and OASIS specification needs to be
focused. If so, then perhaps the mature part of KM should be referenced?
We imagine that there might be some
additional discussion, and if so perhaps just the topics might be of value; but
not a detailed discussion?
One is about the very definition of
“registry” and “repository”…. Most know
that there are non-standard variations to these technologies – some of
them quite radically different. But this topic is off the table at least
in the context of Federal US CIO Council discussions.
Questions
Does ebXML has native ability to interact
with description logic based ontology? Are there any reservations about
this?
Is there a complete ability to call from
ebXML to a stored procedure or a functional program, (something with inputs and
outputs)?
In the XML accelerators, (in reference to
the SUN READ technology, do you (Farrukh) see a deep and seamless address-ment
of the band weigh issues (streaming compressed XML has high costs). Also
READ seems to reduce the need for memory allocation by making a data
compression type dictionary so that the “data” and the “data
structure” are written in isomorphic fashion but with less bits and
bytes.
Would you briefly describe READ
(representation something something) unfortunately Google does not help
here.. I could not re-find the paper you referenced.
I am just trying to verify where we are in
this discussion.
Comments?
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Chiusano Joseph
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 7:15
AM
To: Service-Oriented
Architecture CoP
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo
Straw men (Plural)
Speaking neutrally, and not
intending to spark a debate:):
In case it may help our
understanding of ebXML Registry and UDDI, here an article that I wrote 3 years
ago (April 2003) called "UDDI and ebXML Registry: A Co-Existence
Paradigm" that speaks to both registry types, and a vision for
co-existence between them.
At the time of the article, the market
was very fragmented in respect to these two registry types - since then, we
have seen great changes. For example, there are several vendors who now offer
both support for both ebXML Registry and UDDI in their products. The article
explains how ebXML Registry and UDDI overlap in some capability areas (service
registry), and the additional features that ebXML Registry provides (of most
interest for our purposes here) - as well as some market predictions (of least
interest for our purposes here).
Here is the article:
For further interest: Here is also a
followup article that described how (at the time of its writing, Sept 2003)
both registry standards could seamlessly interact, as well as a broader vision
for registry interoperability:
http://www.ebxmlforum.net/articles/ebFor_20030824.html
Please followup with me offline if
there are any questions on these that are not pertinent to our current
discussion here.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From:
soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory
Casanave
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:39
AM
To: 'Service-Oriented
Architecture CoP'
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo
Straw men (Plural)
Farrukh,
I don’t have a strong
requirement for UDDI, we can see what others may think. I can imagine 3
approaches for the community;
* ebXML
* UDDI
* A community-specific service,
perhaps wrapping one of the above.
I haven’t looked at ebXML deeply
in quite some time (I was part of the initial release, mostly on the
BPSS). I very much like the model but couldn’t get much vendor
support and thus the customer interest waned. Does use of the registry
imply that ebXML must be used for the other roles? How is ebXML
integration with non-ebxml services?
-Cory
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Farrukh Najmi
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:30
AM
To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
Subject: Re: [soa-forum] SOA Demo
Straw men (Plural)
Cory Casanave
wrote:
Farrukh,
Its on the Wiki at;
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SOACoP/SOA%20Community%20of%20Practice%20Dem
o.doc
<excerpt from doc>
Scenarios
Registration of a new actor in the
community
A simple UDDI based
service at a well known community portal
</excerpt from doc>
Is there a reason to be prescribing UDDI above? I would like to participate
with my open source freebXML Registry [1] , [2] which implements the OASIS
ebXML Registry standard [4] (not UDDI). The ebXML Registry standard is also an
ISO standard. It has a super set of functionality than UDDI [8].
There is a growing realization that a registry without an integrated repository
is inadequate for SOA [9] and that ebXML Registry is better suited for complex
SOA dpeloyments [10]. The basic premise is that "you can't govern what you
don't control". If artifacts are stored external to an integrated
repository then they cannot be effectively governed. I have made this very
point in [11].
Please let me know if above is a requirement or not. It does not seem to be a
requirement with IRS, DISA / DoD etc.
Thanks in advance for any clarifications.
[1] freebXML Registry
<http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net>
[2] Reference Deployments of freebXML Registry
<http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/aboutFAQ/About_freebXML_Registry.html#Deployments>
[4] ebXML Registry 3.0 Specifications Bundle (OASIS Approved Standard)
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=12049>
(the specifications)
<http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-02-14-a.html
>(Cover pages article detailing new functionality in version 3.0)
[8] LDAP, UDDI and ebXML Registry feature comparison matrix
<http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/tmp/Registry_Capability_Matrix.html>
[9] UDDI Inadequate for
SOA:
<http://www.it-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=12909&SESSID=3481b206b49825751535e90741ec4cb2>
[10] ebXML registry suited for SOA complexities, say proponents:
<http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid26_gci1122135,00.html?track=NL-110&ad=527456>
[11] SOA Rgeistry White Paper:
<http://www.sun.com/products/soa/registry/soa_registry_wp.pdf>
--
Regards,
Farrukh