Talk:Universal Description Discovery and Integration/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Universal Description Discovery and Integration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Untitled
The lead-in sentence under the history implies that the vision of 2000 did not materialize and that another vision was realized. However there is no discussion of this. It should be added if that is indeed the case.
Astronomyphile (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoping this gets cleaned up in the near future so we can get some technical information relating to UDDI rather than diverse political commentary.
I think that this WIKKI is great. I am particularly interested in finding folks who have stories to tell about actually using a UDDI directory in their businesses and sharing experiences with them. I work for a large financial conglomerate and we are very committed to UDDI, we are looking for the user’s experience in order to understand what the true best practices are.
In essence our use case for UDDI is the management, and governance of a heterogeneous federated implementation of SOA across regions, platforms, business units, and even spanning from our business to our commercial partners, customers, and vendors. We believe that in order to create a non intrusive network of services that depend upon each other but can have no one infrastructure bus for all messages there is a need for standards based way to define, discover, create, edit, and use the metadata about the services and their lifecycles. We believe that UDDI is the only standard that:
- Defines a data model
- Defines a sense of custody
- Defines a validation API
- Defines a Publish and subscribe API so that one component can cache the information in a directory or notify a directory of a metadata change.
I think the page has drifted into some fairly bitter opinions about MS/IBM, with too much perjorative commentary on their membership of OASIS/W3C, the "so-called" standards body WS-I, and the final paragraph doesnt really parse. I think there is a good argument for having a WS-Politics entry that looks at the politics of the WS-*, rather than having opinions scattered across the pages about the many specifications.