Re: [ws-caf] [WSRF][Fwd: [OASIS members] Press Release to Announce OASIS

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Jim Webber wrote:
> 
> Hello Joe,
> 
> > Could you perhaps discuss how WSRF relates to the W3C Web
> > Services Architecture's (which is what I assume you mean by
> > "WSA") Resource-Oriented model?
> 
> Sure, if you look at Section 2.3.3 of WSA
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-arch-20040211/#resource_oriented_mode
> l) it says, "In the context of Web services, the resources being
> discovered are usually service descriptions." It also goes on to discuss
> things from a REST-ish perspective.
> 
> This is a completely different interpretation of resources from what
> WS-RF's proponents suggest (which are usually exemplified as physical
> resources like disks).
> 
> > Also, what I read from your response was that WSRF is a poor
> > fit with what is currently going on in the Web Services
> > standards world - not that it is a bad idea in general. I
> > would be interested in your opinion apart from what is
> > currently going on in the Web Services standards world,
> > because WSRF may (hypotentically speaking) represent an area
> > that up to now has been a void.
> 
> I don't think it has been a void to be honest. There has always been the
> URI, and now there are efforts like XDI to try to add metadata to URIs.
> I don't see how an addressing scheme designed to expose back-end stuff
> can be anything but unhelpful.

Thinking about the WSRF example of accessing a single file from a Web
Service by providing a resource ID that represents that file in a
WS-Addressing endpoint description (and leaving aside for the moment the
fact that WS-Addressing is not an open standard), isn't that capability
a good thing, with the understanding that the necessary security
measures would be in place?

> However if you are at the back end (i.e. you're in a data centre) then
> sure it makes sense to address things. Just don't send those addresses
> outside of your administrative domain or people will bind to them and
> then get mad when you do something quite reasonable like replace bits of
> your hardware with newer kit.

Couldn't this concern be addressed by security policy?

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World

> Note that the notification aspects have now been factored out of WS-RF
> into their own spec, and I don't have a beef with them really (apart
> from they use some WS-RF stuff). I understand the need for advanced MEPs
> in some applications, and I agree that such MEPS might need third-party
> protocol actors to work (i.e. the message broker). However, given the
> bundling of WS-RF and WS-Notification, I'm inclined to support
> WS-Eventing since it seems to have less baggage.
> 
> Jim
> --
> http://jim.webber.name