<Quote>
The problem is that the standard
does not appear to be sufficiently broad to support the management and
governance of the full range of artefacts needed to implement SOA.
</Quote>
Of course not - UDDI
does not have a respository, so what's to govern? This sounds to me like someone
just stating the obvious.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514 <= new office number as of 09/19/05
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: Ed Dodds [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:56 PM
To:
Subject: [regrep] Another positive ebXML
article slips thru media censors
UDDI inadequate for SOA
Friday 23rd September
2005
Written By: Peter Abrahams
Copyright © 2005 Bloor Research
Universal Description, Discovery and Integration
(UDDI) is the registry standard from the Organisation for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS) and is well supported by IBM,
Microsoft and others. The intent is that it should be used to register web
services and, as its name implies, the registration will create a standard
description, which will enable services to be discovered and then integrated
together. There is no doubt that such a service is necessary to support a
System Orientated Architecture (SOA) and early implementations have used UDDI
to good effect.
The problem is that the standard does not appear
to be sufficiently broad to support the management and governance of the full
range of artefacts needed to implement SOA. This is the argument put forward
by the ebXML (electronic business using eXtensible Markup Language) technical
committee, which has developed a series of OASIS standards.
The initial concern of the ebXML committee was
defining standard message formats for electronic business (for example
defining the standard parts of an invoice). As part of this standards effort
it was obvious that the different artefacts needed to be registered; that is,
there needed to be a place where you could discover that an invoice had been
defined. But registration alone was not enough, it was also necessary to have
somewhere to store the definition – commonly known as a repository. The
committee recognised that if the whole lifecycle of an artefact was to be
managed then the registry and the repository had to be joined at the hip. If
they were not, it would be possible for a change to an artefact (for example,
the addition of new field types in the invoice) to be implemented without the
registry being aware.
More at: http://www.it-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=12909&SESSID=3481b206b49825751535e90741ec4cb2
Ed Dodds
Technology Convergence
Strategist
<Conmergence.com/>
ed_dodds_skype skype
615. 429 . 8744 cel | tel
ed1dodds
aim
49457096
icq
conmergence.com
ebxmlforum.org
healthcare.xml.org
mbproject.org
