wsdm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] W3C submission Ws-addressing version, call for objections
- From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:37:50 -0500
understood about the timing issues with
respect to 1.2 versions of the spec. I am not up to speed with the
timing of the decisions, can the WSDM release wait until we have a 1.3
draft of WS-BaseN and WSRF-* that reference W3C member submission of WSA,
or is that timing out of the quesiton?
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Vambenepe, William
N" <vbp@hp.com>
11/17/2004 04:25 PM
|
To
| Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [wsdm] W3C submission
Ws-addressing version, call for objections |
|
Just to make sure we understand
what this would mean:
1) All the EPRs in properties,
messages and events that we define are moved to the 8/2004 namespace. This
is not hard.
2) All the EPRs in the messages
and properties defined by WS-RP and WS-Notif are moved to the 8/2004 namespace.
This means that we cannot use the schemas provided by WS-RP v 1.2 and WS-BaseNotif
v 1.2. That for example the WSDL definition for something like the "subscribe"
operation of WS-BaseNotif is not written anywhere and has to be generated
by WSDM implementers by looking at the definition in the WS-BaseNotif spec
and changing the QName of one of its element. Unless we provided "updated"
versions of all these WSDLs in our spec. This is a lot harder.
Another option is to move to 8/2004
for the EPRs that we define (bullet -1- above) but stay with 3/2003 for
the EPRs defined by WS-RP and WS-BaseNotif (not doing bullet -2- above).
Which would solve some problems (we can base our implementations on any
WSRF 1.2 and WS-Notif 1.2 compliant implementation like GT4) but also introduces
confusion. Especially when we consider WS-ServiceGroup because then you
need to translate the EPR of your manageability endpoint from 8/2004 to
3/2003 before adding it to the service group. And if you were to for example
express that you have a relationship with a subscriptionManager WS-Resource
(returned by invoking "subscribe" on a notificationProducer)
you would have to translate the EPR of this resource from 3/2003 to 8/2004.
etc...
William
From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Steve Graham
Cc: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] W3C submission Ws-addressing version, call for objections
This seems reasonable to me.
I recommond that we make WSDM MUWS dependent on the WS-Addressng submission
to the W3C.
Any objections?
Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572
Steve
Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
11/17/2004 07:27 AM
|
|
I believe it is preferable to move WSDM to reference the W3C member submission
version of WSA.
I believe that WSN and WSRF are doing that anyway.
In WSRF, issue WSRF43 [1] was resolved at the Oct F2F, with the resolution
being:
"Update specifications that reference WS-Addressing
to refer to the version submitted to the W3C. This includes all namespace
references and examples. Make sure to update the WSDL and schema in addition
to the specification text. The version to reference is the August 2004
version submitted to the W3C."
In WSN, issue WSN2.15 [2] was also resolved at the Oct F2F, with the resolution
being:
"Agreed Approach: Editors to borrow text from
the WS-RF issue #30 resolution."
Now, WSRF30 is a slightly different issue (deals with use of wsa:Action
MIH), but WSRF30 cross references WSRF43. I suspect that the resolution
to WSN2.15 should reference WSRF43, but that seems to be a matter we should
take up with the WSN TC.
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/10042/WSRF_IssuesList.doc
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsn/download.php/9948/WSN_IssuesList1.75.doc
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
11/17/2004 01:00 AM
|
To
| <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [wsdm] Ws-addressing version |
|
What version of WS-Addressing do we want to reference? The one submitted
to W3C in August? Or the one used by version 1.2 of the WSRF/WSN specs
(that'd the March 2003 one, two versions older than the W3C-submitted
one).
On the one hand it would make sense to align with the one used by WSRF,
on the other hand it seems a bit silly for a new spec like ours to
reference such an old version.
Thoughts?
William
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_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]