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

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Title: Message

Steve,

Your push for adopting WS-Addressing as currently submitted to the W3C seems to imply that the future WG will pretty much rubber stamp that submission (as opposed to evaluating it together with other submissions like WS-MD and coming up with something that might be rather different than the original WS-Addressing submission).

 

Do you have some inside information about the work of the future WG that we don't have? (As a W3C Advisory Committee rep, I would really like to know ...).

 

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:28 AM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsn] Re: [wsrf] Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to W3C as input

> 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 :-) ).
I don;t think WSDL 1.1 or SOAP 1.1 was or is a mistake.  I don't think adopting
WS-Addressing as submitted is a mistake either.

So, while the WG in W3C gets formed and produces its work, my claim is that
we should move to WS-Addressing as submitted to W3C (resolving issue WSRF43)
and not continue to consider some abstract wrapper over the EPR as the
"ws-reference" suggestions discussed at the F2F.

With regards the addition of reference properties, we will need to consider
if in fact they are needed at all in WSRF.  I suspect that existing implementations
will have to update to the new WS-Addressing anyway, but this update appears
relatively minor.

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> wrote on 08/12/2004 04:05:23 AM:

> 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
> >
> >
> >