Re: [wsrf] Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to W3C as input

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

Anish:
This changes things significantly IMHO.

The current specs in WSN and WSRF are
written to leverage WS-Addressing.  I understood that there was some
concern from the community that this choice was not wonderful due to the
"current ambiguous position of WS-Addressing with respect to standards".
 Now that this ambiguity has been clarified we can minimize perturbation
to our specs by going with the submitted version of WS-Addressing as the
basis.  

With respect to the result of the W3C
WG formation process, we can take two approaches:
a) if the WG is not successfully formed,
we could consider what to do at that point, either stay with the submitted
WS-Addressing or go for the abstracted model like BPEL chose.

b) if the WG is successfully formed,
then I recommend we go with WS-Addressing as submitted and when the WG
finishes, (these things do take time as you well know) then produce a version
2.0 of the WSN and WSRF specs to reference the result of the W3C workgroup's
recommendation.

Net/net, WS-Addressing meets our needs,
and now has clear standing within an open standards body. By going with
WS-Addressing we greatly minimize the perturbations in the existing specs
and we do minimize the change for developers and exploiters going from
version  1.1 or 1.2 of our specs to the currently active version 1.3.
Furthermore, we avoid the interoperability issue that is introduced by
abstracting the reference with a dialect. Exploiters and developers won't
have to worry about "which reference dialects can I used" for
any particular Web Service he/she wants to interact with.

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

08/10/2004 03:57 PM

To	Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org, wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	[wsrf] Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to W3C as input

Steve Graham wrote:

> 
> Folks:
> Please see: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/.
> This is a submission request to the W3C by BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP
and 
> Sun to submit WS-Addressing to W3C as input to the standardization
process.
> 
> I would like to recommend that we consider using WS-Addressing as
> submitted to the W3C in our work in WS-RF and WS-N.  Note, our
use of 
> WSDL 1.1 (which was a submission to W3C, just like WS-Addressing is
now) 
> is a precedence for this sort of pre-requisite.
> 
> I formally move that we use WS-Addressing as our only means of reference
> mechanism. In particular, I propose that we avoid abstracting the
> reference mechanism, such as BPEL has done, in light of this submission
> of WS-Addressing to W3C.  Note, this minimizes the perturbation
to the 
> currently specified message exchanges, and reduces migration impediments
> for implementations that are building to the 1.1 and 1.2 versions
of our 
> specifications.
> 

I think this is a very good first step.
But I don't see how this changes things for us in the short term. There
are now two submissions made to W3C [1] [2] that "address" the
same 
problem domain. There is also an effort to get a charter [3][4][5][6][7]
(pl. note that references [5], [6] and [7] are accessible to W3C member
only) for a W3C Working Group. Given that there are two submissions and
that there *may* be a W3C WG, it would in fact make more sense to 
abstract the reference mechanism. This will also future proof our specs
to what ever comes out of a W3C WG (if it happens).

-Anish
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/02/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Jun/0000.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Aug/0003.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0001.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0002.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0003.html