RE: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

Title: Message

Steve,

 

Please lets not confuse this discussion with what WS-I does. WS-I was explicitly established to profile SOAP 1.1, WSDL1.1 and UDDI so

adding this to the discussion is mute; WS-I decides what it wants to depend on.

 

WSDL 1.1 was published as a note and has been widely adopted. Had the WSD WG moved a lot quicker to

agreeing 2.0 (nee 1.2), then it may be inappropriate to build on 1.1, but we all  no this didn't happen.

Addressing on the other hand will soon be going into last call, and has some major changes from the published W3C note.

This is why we think it is inappropriate to depend on the W3C published note on addressing, since it will soon be outdated.

 

Martin.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 02 March 2005 12:41
To: Mark Little
Cc: Heather Kreger; Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
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