I recently wrote a rambling, everything but the kitchen sink screed on service registries<\/A>. My argument was that it doesn’t make sense to say UDDI is the only possible registry mechanism, when there are so many different service models coalescing, converging and competing at the moment. Some are legacy, some are future. ebXML, for example, has a role. Just ask Korea<\/A> .<\/P> Radovan Janacek, Systinet’s VP of Engineering, came back with a response<\/A>. He says he didn’t take the time to read my argument, which is fair enough. But he responds anyway, which is fair enough. I am glad he didn’t get my post though, because i don’t fully understand his response.<\/P> But i will say putting interoperability<\/STRONG> in bold every time doesn’t make an argument any more compelling.<\/P> If the answer of WS-I exponents as to “why UDDI?” is “because its good for handling WSDL” then that is fine, but a circular and somewhat tautologous argument. Isn’t that what UDDI was designed for in the first?<\/P> Luc Clement, who was on the OASIS UDDI team, but now works for Systinet, believes no vendors will offer UDDI ebXML regrep bridges (except Sun, Infravio and webMethods, who already do). As far as i can such a bridge would be an approach to interoperability<\/STRONG>, but i guess not. <\/P>