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

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Steve Graham wrote:

> 
> 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.  
> 

I'm not sure how this ambiguity has been clarified. It is just a 
submission (with clear IRP decl.) not a standard (yes, I know so is SOAP 
1.1 and WSDL 1.1 -- but that does not mean that we make the same mistake 
thrice :-) ). There are two such W3C submissions. The important thing is 
to have a convergence in a WG/TC where issues can be resolved and a 
single spec that addresses the 'referencing/addressing' needs become a 
standard. The good news is that, it seems like, things are heading in 
that direction, but it is still a while away.

> 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.
> 

I'm hoping that such a WG will fasttracked (as mentioned in the charter 
proposal from the WS-Addressing authors)

> Net/net, WS-Addressing meets our needs, and now has clear standing 
> within an open standards body. 

I don't see how it has a clear standing within an open stds 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.
> 

If we adopt the latest version of ws-addressing, there will some interop 
issues, as new things (reference parameters) have been added.

> 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
> 
> 
>