OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM



I've been told that there is no restriction in OASIS rules on references to 'Non Offical Standard' specifications.

I was encouraged to have references to specifications that are openly available to all who would like to read them in some standards body (we won't rehash the discussion on which bodies are valid standards bodies) and with clear IP.

However, I've asked Jamie Clark to weigh in here to help us with our process rules.

IMO, If we permit WSDL 1.1 references, direct or indirect, it seems we must permit other references.  Otherwise, how would we determine
which were ok and which were off limits. It is hard to determine if a standard is 'almost done' or not... (revist the WSDL story again). I also worry a abit about 'done' status, it seems that we are always working on a next version of a standard and that the time when the current version (in whatever status) will be 'outdated' is always within our sights. Dealing with evolution is part of our job here.  One way to do that is to periodically take a consistent snap shot of something that works. Beyond all that, It is impractical to disallow WSDL 1.1.  

We should be carefull not to encourage TCs to reinvent work that another TC already has in process just to avoid a reference to a standard in progress. We need to encourage less duplication and more composability. There are stable points in the lifetime of standards development that can be implemented and used for interoperability.

WSDM explicitly attempted to choose stable points in its dependencies where the dependent specs were consistent with each other.

Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572



Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>

03/02/2005 10:04 AM

To
Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>, wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM





Steve, good questions. I don't make the rules, I'm only saying what
we've been told within WS-CAF. WSDL 1.1 is presumably a gray area.

Mark.


Steve Graham wrote:

>
> >we would not be allowed to propose
> >for adoption a specification that relies on other specifications that
> >are themselves not standards in some recognised standards body
> WSDL 1.1 poses an interesting problem.
>
> WSDL 1.1 is not a standard, it is a W3C note that "seeded" the Web
> Services Description Working
> Group in the W3C.  So, WSDL 1.1 has similar standing to the
> WS-Addressing submission that
> "seeded" that WG in W3C, and for that matter, the member submissions
> that "seeded" the
> WS-Notification and WS-RF TCs in OASIS.
>
> So, would this rule suggest that no OASIS TC in the Web services arena
> would be able to
> use WSDL 1.1?  This would be a very big problem:
> a) WS-I BP 1.1(R0001 )  requires the use of WSDL 1.1 or UDDI.  I don't
> think it is pragmatic to
> require the use of UDDI when WSDL is a much more natural thing to use.
> b) WSDL tooling is broadly available, it is impractical to expect
> developers to adopt any WS*
> standard that doesn't provide WSDL.
>
> Does WS-CTX use WSDL?  Does it have a normative reference to WSDL 1.1?
>  If the answer to
> either of these is "yes", does this then prevent WS-CTX from becoming
> an OASIS standard?
>
> sgg
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
>
>
>
> *Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>*
>
> 03/01/2005 03:53 PM
>
>
> To
>         "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
> cc
>         Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
>         Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> William, like WS-DM, we reference WS-Addressing in WS-CAF and use an
> open content model (because we also support WS-MD as an alternate EPR
> implementation). Now it's always been my understanding from when we
> started WS-CAF that under OASIS rules we would not be allowed to propose
> for adoption a specification that relies on other specifications that
> are themselves not standards in some recognised standards body. At least
> that's what I've been told. Since there isn't a dependency on
> WS-Addressing, we should be able to have WS-Context (as an example from
> the CAF work) pushed to standard level without any conflict.
>
> Now currently we're looking at using WS-BaseFaults from WS-RF within
> WS-CAF. One issue with this would be that we couldn't move for adoption
> of a specification as a standard anything that used WS-BaseFaults until
> that was itself a standard. (Assuming the interpretation of OASIS rules
> is correct; I have no idea how circularities are dealt with!)
>
> WS-MD has a dependency on WS-RF and WS-N. So irrespective of the
> WS-Addressing issue, this still remains. True?
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Vambenepe, William N wrote:
>
> > A related concern I've heard is that WSDM uses 2 different versions of
> > WS-Addressing. More precisely, WSDM uses one version of WS-A (2004/08)
> > but it also uses WS-BaseNotif 1.2d3 which uses another version of
> > WS-Addressing (2003/02). This is true and of course everyone agrees
> > that it is less than ideal.
> >
> > But while this creates a little bit of added complexity for some
> > implementations, in no case does it result in interoperability
> > problems. Each message exchange described by WSDM which uses an EPR
> > (including those inherited from WS-BaseNotif) specifies unambiguously
> > what version of WS-A is used in the EPR. So yes you might have to
> > support more than one version but you always clearly know what version
> > to use when.
> >
> > Here is an example:
> >
> > Using WSDM, I learn that my manageable resource A depends on a
> > manageable resource B. Through the WSDM relationship mechanism, I get
> > an EPR (version 2004/08) that points to a manageability endpoint for
> > B. Since I care about the health of A, I decide to register for
> > notifications on B so that I'll be alerted when something goes wrong
> > with B that could affect the health of A. To do so, I use the EPR I
> > have for B (again, using WS-A version 2004/08) to send a "subscribe"
> > message to B. The response to this message contains an EPR to the
> > newly created subscription. This EPR uses the 2003/02 version of WS-A.
> > So I now have two EPRs, one (version 2004/08) to the manageability
> > endpoint to B and the other one (version 2003/02) to a subscription.
> > These are used for different interactions and address different
> > endpoints. There is no confusion as to what version of WS-A to use for
> > what EPR.
> >
> > And in any case, smart implementations such as the ones in Apache will
> > be, as the saying goes, "liberal in what they consume and conservative
> > in what they produce". From my understanding, the Apache Hermes code
> > will accept any version of WS-addressing.
> >
> > Those who have concerns about these problems are warmly invited to
> > join us in the WSDM interop effort.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
> > *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2005 12:59 PM
> > *To:* wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM
> >
> >
> > I just thought I'd try to correct any misunderstandings from Martin's
> > post.  In his post
> > he makes a set of assertions and I'd just like to clarify one or two.
> >   The assertion that
> > the changes to WS-Addressting are disruptive to the WSDM V1.0
> > specifation.
> >
> > "In
> > particular WS-Addressing is currently being worked on and looks like
> > the final version when it finally emerges will be significantly
> > different from its various antecedent proprietary versions. In
> > particular the debates and changes surrounding reference properties
> > and parameters will mean the use of different schema types and usage
> > patterns. None of these changes will mean that it can't be used by
> > these higher level specifications, e.g. WSDM, etc., but they will need
> > to be modified. The current Working Draft of the W3C WS-Addressing
> Working
> > Group [2] includes this status section:"
> >
> > "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by
> >  other documents at any time.
> > It is inappropriate to cite this document
> > as other than work in progress."
> >
> > Because WSDM treats the entire EPR as opaque. We only use the EPR as a
> > unit.
> > We do not suggest how to create the EPR or ever suggest information be
> > extracted from EPRs.
> >
> > Therefore, WSDM V1.0 is unaffected by changes in the WS-Addressing
> > specification in the W3C.
> > WSDM V1.0 does not reference the WS-Addressing Working Draft, it
> > references the submission:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/. The
> > submission itself is stable.
> >
> > It is not changing during development of the specification.  It does
> > not have the same text quoted above in the status section.
> >
> > WSDM V2.0 is already scoped to include making whatever changes are
> > necessary to use the standard
> > versions of WS-Addresssing, WS-Notification, and WS-Resource Framework.
> >
> > Heather Kreger
> > STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
> > Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
> > kreger@us.ibm.com
> > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> >
> [attachment "mark.little.vcf" deleted by Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsdm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsdm-help@lists.oasis-open.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsdm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org

For additional commands, e-mail: wsdm-help@lists.oasis-open.org

mark.little.vcf



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]