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

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

Hi Abdeslem:


"Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) " <A.Djaoui@rl.ac.uk>
wrote on 08/13/2004 07:34:34 AM:

> Hi
>  
> I think, in view the WS-addressing submission
to w3c, the risks of the WSRF 
> dependence on it, is substantially lowered. This is mostly because
every important 
> player out there is supporting it and there are numerous other specifications
which
> make use of WS-Addressing and are dependent on it. As for the relationship
with 
> other specifications that could be used instead of WS-Addressing (WS_MD,
> Application Data Features and Properties in WSDL 2.0 - Note: Both
IBM and Microsoft
> have objected to having Features and Properties in WSDL 2.0), it looks
that this 
> will be debated within w3c, and is probably outside the scope of this
TC.  This is 
> a good reason to reconsider the decision at the London F2F about defining
an 
> abstract wrapper over an EPR. Let's leave the addressing problem to
W3C for now, 
> and reconsider our position if we have to in the future.
+1

>  
> The introduction of Reference Parameters and
the clarification on EPR comparison 
> will benefit WSRF and help eradicate some of the question on how WS-addressing
is 
> used in WSRF. I never was comfortable with the way ReferenceProperties
were used to
> identify WS-Resources. Reference Parameters seem to be more appropriate
for that. 
This is where we need further debate.
First, the EPR comparison section is somewhat helpful,
but not terribly so.  For example, 
it says nothing on reasoning about EPRs that are different.
It is quite possible that 
two EPRs differ, but still refer to the same resource.
This situation is much more interesting
and happens quite a bit in systems management scenarios.
 This is where the heart of
the matter actually lies.

Now, on the preference for Ref Parms to identify (disambiguate)
resources, I am not sure
that is the right approach.
The WS-Addressing (Aug 2004) spec says (section 2.1):
[reference properties] : xs:any (0..unbounded).

A reference may contain a number of individual properties
that are required to identify the entity or resource being conveyed. 

So, (avoiding the grumbling about the use of the word
identify) the spec suggests Ref Props, 
not Ref Parms, are more appropriate for the sorts
of things we are doing in WSRF.

sgg
>  
> Abdeslem
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 12 August 2004 19:30
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; wsn@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsn] Re: [wsrf] Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to
W3C as input
>  
> 
> Ugo: 
> No, I don't have any inside information. I don't believe the WG will
"rubber stamp"
> WS-Addressing, just like W3C didn't "rubber stamp" WSDL
1.1.  My point is that we 
> now have a version of WS-Addressing that removes the concerns raised
previously in 
> the TC, lets use that version and commit to adopting the version produced
by the 
> W3C when that WG is formed, has deliberated and concluded on what
the final 
> "standard" is.  This will take time.  In the meantime,
just like with WSDL 1.1, 
> lets use WS-Addressing, not make major perturbations in our specs
and get on with other work.
> 
> sgg 
> 
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
> 

> 
> "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> 
> 08/12/2004 01:25 PM 
> 
> To
> 
> Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

> 
> cc
> 
> <wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>, <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>

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