Hi David,
Thanks for sharing this interesting news.
The fact that UDDI does not meet the requirements of an industrial
strength repository is probably not a surprise many savvy folks in the
user community. After all, it was never designed for that purpose and in
fact does not even have a repository.
It would be good to have discussions with IBM colleagues to explore
their repository requirements and how well ebXML regrep meets their needs.
BTW, I am guilty for suggesting that we drop the "and Repository" from
our original name "ebXMl Registry and Repository".
The rationale was that the name was a mouthful. In retrospect, I think a
better name that was not a mouthful would have been
"ebXML Repository".
I wonder if it is possible and whether it makes sense for us to
officially change our name now. It would be a clear reminder that we are
very much a
Repository standard as indicated in our TC name regrep.
What do TC members think?
David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> FYI. But the recent developments the past week on rr-dev on using
> OMAR with simpler GUI tools - maybe what IBM needs here? Sometimes a
> simple breakthrough can make all the difference in adoption...
>
> I would suggest some dialogue could be critical - especially given
> IBMs commit to regrep for IHE/XDS - aligning on the one secure
> registry base would be a power play for them...
>
> DW
>
> IBM Calls for New SOA Registry Standard
> Joe McKendrick, ZDNet Blog
>
> IBM spokespeople are saying that the UDDI standard for registries isn't
> cutting it, and the "time is now" for a new registry standard more
> focused on today's SOA realities. In the meantime, IBM will be offering
> a proprietary solution. In a new report in ITWeek, IBM managers state
> that SOAs have stretched the Universal Description, Discovery and
> Integration (UDDI) web services standard to the limit, and that it's
> time for a new standard.
>
> Burton Group's Anne Thomas Manes had just
> issued a report that IBM's WebSphere Service Registry and Repository
> (WSRR) 6.0.1 doesn't fully support UDDI, the commonly accepted standard
> behind SOA registries. IBM, however, says that UDDI was originally
> designed for Web services, which invoke point-to-point connections
> across the network. (In fact, it was designed to be the "Yellow Pages"
> of the e-business world.)
>
> But what enterprises need now is a registry
> standard that addresses the building-block, enterprise approach of SOA,
> Big Blue says. SOAs require different information about services than
> do Web services, IBM claimed. According to Sunil Murthy, a manager for
> WebSphere Service Registry and Repository at IBM's Software Group, UDDI
> will not allow for role-based access to services, does not let companies
> manage a service's life cycle to enable governance, and does not allow
> for services to be searched. The IBM representatives quoted in the
> article could not predict what a new registry standard would or should
> look like, but said vendors should take their time in sorting things out.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=864
> See also Burton:
> http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid26_gci1252107,00.html
>
> "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
