RE: UDDI's UUIDs issue

I raised exactly this issue at the UDDI F2F last week, and I was given a list of reasons why the existing http scheme would not adequate (reasons that sounded good to me at the time, but whose details I have unfortunately forgotten). 

If the WSA WG wants to officially investigate this issue, I can ask the UDDI people who worked on version 3 under UDDI.org to prepare a list of rationales for the WSA WG that explain why a new URI scheme was necessary.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UDDI's UUIDs issue


In this context, the "good practice" suggestion of the TAG to avoid
using new URI schemes when existing ones would suffice (in this case,
the "http" scheme would suffice), is also important, I believe;

  http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:56:35PM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> While going through the latest architecture doc draft, I noticed that 5.1, Identifiers, has an issue about the UUID identifiers used by UDDI. I think I can add some information that can at least partially clarify the issue. 
> 
> Starting with version 3, the UDDI spec requires that all keys be expressed as URIs (see [1]). It also recommends that the URI scheme "uddi" be used. The UDDI TC plans to formally register this new URI scheme in the near future. It is still possible to use UUID-based identifiers, but they have to be wrapped in a in a "uddi:" URI format.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> [1] http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.00-published-20020719.htm#_Toc12653651

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.   http://www.markbaker.ca

   Will distribute objects for food