Dave Linthicum asks;
With lack of interest in UDDI there seems to be a need for another directory standard to come up and take its place.
8-O
As I previously pointed out, directory standards simply aren’t required because we have the Web. But whether or not you buy the “Web for machine-to-machine integration” position, I think it’s pretty clear that because UDDI registries were accessed primarily by humans and not automata, that it was directly competitive with the HTML-based Web.
And that’s exactly what we saw happen; there was the emergence of non-UDDI registries such as XMethods which primarily presented an HTML/HTTP interface, but more interestingly, we saw the UDDI registries themselves being used almost exclusively (from what I heard) through their HTML/HTTP interface.
So what will happen when automata want to start doing actual dynamic discovery and integration, and we need more than plain old HTML? Will they incorporate the lessons from UDDI? Will they try to reinvent it? Or is a centralized registry, or some component thereof, even necessary?
I hear Phil Windley has some ideas in this space. In fact, he and a student of his, Tom Warne, will be presenting this work on my Dev track at WWW2006 in Edinburgh next month. If this interests you, we’d love to see you there.
Tags: uddi, web, webservices.
no comment until now