Steve, All registries maintain ownership information. That's a pretty basic type of relationship, and it's built into the core UDDI data model. I'm more interested in: - which services meet or exceed this surety level? - which services meet or exceed this SLA? - which types contain customer information? - which services use the corp-namespace:customer type? - which services contain customer information? - which artifacts don't comply with corporate policies (or this specific set of policies)? - which applications rely on this service? - which services rely on this service? - what system resources does this service rely on? - which services are not currently being audited?
A repository should support these types of queries. And it should do so using a Google style search tool. If it doesn't, it's not much use. Most of the repository products support this type of query. Systinet's search facility is the most powerful of the systems I've looked at, and it permits you to search based on any information in any or all artifacts in the respository. (The power of XQuery and its ability to do the equivalent of "joins" really comes through.) IBM also has a pretty powerful search facility, but since the underlying system is based on XPath, it doesn't have the ability to do a cross-artifact join (it's searching only in individual artifacts; it can't do "joins"). Infravio's search facility is based on SQL, so queries must resolve down to values associated with individual table elements -- as a result the free-form search is more constrained. (It indexes artifacts and captures lots of info from the artifacts, but the search facility is much less powerful than IBM or Systinet.) Anne On 2/11/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not disagreeing that these are important elements, and for me more "runtime" or technical. Relationships can be done in free form (they are just links afterall) and Google is pretty good at that, hell you could even argue dependencies could be tracked that way (but I won't). What I'm saying is that there are two problems, one is how to get anyone, whether technical or not, to find services for them to be used, the other is the technical governance that needs to be done. The most important of these jobs is the former as without it you can't get to the later. Now the former is, as I think I've mentioned, one of the few places that I've actually seen real benefits to "Semantic" web (namely the semantic extensions to MediaWiki) as then you can query based on the intentions of relationships "Give me all services that Bob owns". If registries could adopt that form of style then it would make them more people friendly for discovery. On 10/02/07, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Google certainly wins for human discovery, but what about > relationships, dependancy tracking, impact analysis, lifecycle management, > change control, and other governance capabilities? > > Anne > > > On 2/10/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > XQuery is what gives the repository a powerful search capability. > > REST is what enables users to more readily exploit the search capability. I > > think Systinet did a pretty good job putting love into its UI. Its > > competitors have a long way to go. (Systinet still has a lot of stuff to do > > to enhance its product, and it really needs to fix its performance problems, > > but its just way beyond with the other folks have done.) > > > > > > > Anne, I'm not convinced that XQuery is a very effectively search tool > > for a repository except for technical navigation. Its reliant on > > knowledge of the XML structure and is based on traversal, thus loose > > associations tend to be lost. > > > > Registry for runtime and technical discovery, Google for humand > > discovery makes more sense to me. > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > ps. And no -- I have no personal stake in HP or Systinet. I've just > > completed a pretty thorough analysis of the leading products, and I was > > astonished by the differences. > > > > > > > > > On 2/10/07, Paul Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<paul.downey%40whatfettle.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Feb 2007, at 12:32, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes -- open content model, automatic detection of relationships, > > > > > hyperlinks, REST architecture, excellent search. This is what > > > > > differentiates Systinet's repository from the other players. It > > > > > doesn't have a built-in wiki capability, although it does have a > > > > > free-form description field for all artifacts. And the content > > > > > model is extensible, so you could add/extend the description or > > > > > comments field to allow folks to add more information. > > > > > > > > I periodically get to attend meetings where someone has a vision > > > > which involves a single registry/repository to rule them all. > > > > There follows a list of all the great metadata which this > > > > single truth will "own". > > > > > > > > Usually a can't hear what they're saying due to the sound > > > > of "Darth Vader's Theme" trumpeting in my lugholes. > > > > Empire building.. Empire building .. > > > > > > > > Beyond the obvious political motivations for a central registry, > > > > I just don't like the outcome. Flickr, Google, Amazon, etc all put > > more > > > > love into their developer web pages. It's no coincidence they're > > > > adopted more widely by developers that services shoved into > > > > a UDDI at the edge of the known universe. > > > > > > > > Web sites rock. Spreadsheets suck. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > -- > > > > http://blog.whatfettle.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
