OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM



>we would not be allowed to propose
>for adoption a specification that relies on other specifications that
>are themselves not standards in some recognised standards body

WSDL 1.1 poses an interesting problem.

WSDL 1.1 is not a standard, it is a W3C note that "seeded" the Web Services Description Working
Group in the W3C.  So, WSDL 1.1 has similar standing to the WS-Addressing submission that
"seeded" that WG in W3C, and for that matter, the member submissions that "seeded" the
WS-Notification and WS-RF TCs in OASIS.

So, would this rule suggest that no OASIS TC in the Web services arena would be able to
use WSDL 1.1?  This would be a very big problem:
a) WS-I BP 1.1(R0001 )  requires the use of WSDL 1.1 or UDDI.  I don't think it is pragmatic to
require the use of UDDI when WSDL is a much more natural thing to use.
b) WSDL tooling is broadly available, it is impractical to expect developers to adopt any WS*
standard that doesn't provide WSDL.

Does WS-CTX use WSDL?  Does it have a normative reference to WSDL 1.1?  If the answer to
either of these is "yes", does this then prevent WS-CTX from becoming an OASIS standard?

sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++



Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>

03/01/2005 03:53 PM

To
"Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
cc
Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM





William, like WS-DM, we reference WS-Addressing in WS-CAF and use an
open content model (because we also support WS-MD as an alternate EPR
implementation). Now it's always been my understanding from when we
started WS-CAF that under OASIS rules we would not be allowed to propose
for adoption a specification that relies on other specifications that
are themselves not standards in some recognised standards body. At least
that's what I've been told. Since there isn't a dependency on
WS-Addressing, we should be able to have WS-Context (as an example from
the CAF work) pushed to standard level without any conflict.

Now currently we're looking at using WS-BaseFaults from WS-RF within
WS-CAF. One issue with this would be that we couldn't move for adoption
of a specification as a standard anything that used WS-BaseFaults until
that was itself a standard. (Assuming the interpretation of OASIS rules
is correct; I have no idea how circularities are dealt with!)

WS-MD has a dependency on WS-RF and WS-N. So irrespective of the
WS-Addressing issue, this still remains. True?

Mark.


Vambenepe, William N wrote:

> A related concern I've heard is that WSDM uses 2 different versions of
> WS-Addressing. More precisely, WSDM uses one version of WS-A (2004/08)
> but it also uses WS-BaseNotif 1.2d3 which uses another version of
> WS-Addressing (2003/02). This is true and of course everyone agrees
> that it is less than ideal.
>  
> But while this creates a little bit of added complexity for some
> implementations, in no case does it result in interoperability
> problems. Each message exchange described by WSDM which uses an EPR
> (including those inherited from WS-BaseNotif) specifies unambiguously
> what version of WS-A is used in the EPR. So yes you might have to
> support more than one version but you always clearly know what version
> to use when.
>  
> Here is an example:
>  
> Using WSDM, I learn that my manageable resource A depends on a
> manageable resource B. Through the WSDM relationship mechanism, I get
> an EPR (version 2004/08) that points to a manageability endpoint for
> B. Since I care about the health of A, I decide to register for
> notifications on B so that I'll be alerted when something goes wrong
> with B that could affect the health of A. To do so, I use the EPR I
> have for B (again, using WS-A version 2004/08) to send a "subscribe"
> message to B. The response to this message contains an EPR to the
> newly created subscription. This EPR uses the 2003/02 version of WS-A.
> So I now have two EPRs, one (version 2004/08) to the manageability
> endpoint to B and the other one (version 2003/02) to a subscription.
> These are used for different interactions and address different
> endpoints. There is no confusion as to what version of WS-A to use for
> what EPR.
>  
> And in any case, smart implementations such as the ones in Apache will
> be, as the saying goes, "liberal in what they consume and conservative
> in what they produce". From my understanding, the Apache Hermes code
> will accept any version of WS-addressing.
>  
> Those who have concerns about these problems are warmly invited to
> join us in the WSDM interop effort.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> William
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2005 12:59 PM
> *To:* wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM
>
>
> I just thought I'd try to correct any misunderstandings from Martin's
> post.  In his post
> he makes a set of assertions and I'd just like to clarify one or two.
>   The assertion that
> the changes to WS-Addressting are disruptive to the WSDM V1.0
> specifation.
>
> "In
> particular WS-Addressing is currently being worked on and looks like
> the final version when it finally emerges will be significantly
> different from its various antecedent proprietary versions. In
> particular the debates and changes surrounding reference properties
> and parameters will mean the use of different schema types and usage
> patterns. None of these changes will mean that it can't be used by
> these higher level specifications, e.g. WSDM, etc., but they will need
> to be modified. The current Working Draft of the W3C WS-Addressing Working
> Group [2] includes this status section:"
>
> "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by
>  other documents at any time.
> It is inappropriate to cite this document
> as other than work in progress."
>
> Because WSDM treats the entire EPR as opaque. We only use the EPR as a
> unit.
> We do not suggest how to create the EPR or ever suggest information be
> extracted from EPRs.
>
> Therefore, WSDM V1.0 is unaffected by changes in the WS-Addressing
> specification in the W3C.
> WSDM V1.0 does not reference the WS-Addressing Working Draft, it
> references the submission:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/. The
> submission itself is stable.
>
> It is not changing during development of the specification.  It does
> not have the same text quoted above in the status section.
>
> WSDM V2.0 is already scoped to include making whatever changes are
> necessary to use the standard
> versions of WS-Addresssing, WS-Notification, and WS-Resource Framework.
>
> 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
>
[attachment "mark.little.vcf" deleted by Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsdm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsdm-help@lists.oasis-open.org



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]