Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - Manageability Capabilities.091004.doc uploaded
Since I probably won't be able to be on the call tomorrow, I thought I should send my thoughts ahead of time about this. The short version is: this is a bad idea and, if we have to address this, Igor's proposal (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsdm/200407/msg00032.html) is better even though it too is too complex. Some more info: - Discovery of capabilities really means "tell me what I can do with this manageable resource" and this in practice means "tell me what properties, operations and events are available". If a "foo" capabilities defines optional "bar1", "bar2" and "bar3" properties, knowing that a manageable resource supports the "foo" capability is not very actionable. What is actionable is knowing what properties can be accessed and whether they are read-only or read-write. This is already supported. - WSDM is long and complex enough to read (not to implement but to read). There is a high price in adding more concepts and I don't think it is worth it here. - Even if we were to do something like this, doing it through "marker" portTypes with no operations is the wrong way. We have to keep a clear understanding of what the different pieces of metadata are for. A WSDL portType is metadata that describes the format of the messages that will go on the wire. Period. It is not about making statements about the implementation of the Web service. If you want to make such statements, you make them as policy or other non-WSDL (and non-XSD) policy format that is designed for this. - So if the group really wants to do this we can do it either through the upcoming metadata support from WSRF or by adding a property. That second option is what Igor's message describes. - If we go this way, let's not bite the bullet of defining a taxonomy as Igor suggests in his email. Please. Let's just attach one URI to each capability we describe and provide a property that lists the capabilities as a list of URIs. Period. - I agree with Igor's statement at the end of his message that we don't need this for 1.0. So my preference is to not have anything along this (or rather have what we currently have, portTypes and properties that can be introspected). Sorry if this is a bit long and has a bunch of "if then" but since I am not sure which direction the conversation is going to go tomorrow I wanted to give enough information on my position so that it is relevant whatever the group leans towards. Please keep it simple. Regards, William -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 2:09 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [wsdm] Groups - Manageability Capabilities.091004.doc uploaded The document Manageability Capabilities.091004.doc has been submitted by Heather Kreger (email@example.com) to the OASIS Web Services Distributed Management TC document repository. Document Description: Here is an overdue write up of Manageability Capabilities formalization to be discussed on our next call. Download Document: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/download.php/9583/Mana geability%20Capabilities.091004.doc View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/document.php?document_ id=9583 PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou p.php.