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.
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.
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
> >
> >
> >