Like the business cards and the directory assistance systems, the UDDI and WS-Inspection specifications address different sets of issues in the discovery problem space, and are characterized by different sets of trade-offs. UDDI provides a high degree of functionality, but it comes at a cost of increased complexity. The WS-Inspection specification adopts a lower level of functionality in order to maintain a low overhead. In this light, the two specifications should be viewed as complementary technologies, to be used either together or separately depending upon the situation. For example, a UDDI repository could be populated based upon the results found when performing a "Web crawl" for WS-Inspection documents. Likewise, a UDDI repository may itself be discovered when a requester retrieves a WS-Inspection document which references an entry in the repository. In environments where the advanced functionality afforded by UDDI is not required and where constraints do not allow for its deployment, the WS-Inspection mechanism may provide all of the capabilities which are needed. In situations where data needs to be centrally managed, a UDDI solution alone may provide the best fit. The UDDI and WS-Inspection specifications should not be viewed as providing competing mechanisms, any more than business cards and directory assistance services are viewed as competing to disseminate personal information.