Re: [wsdm] WS-Addressing Effects on WSDM

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Steve, good questions. I don't make the rules, I'm only saying what 
we've been told within WS-CAF. WSDL 1.1 is presumably a gray area.

Mark.


Steve Graham wrote:

>
> >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

begin:vcard
fn:Mark Little
n:Little;Mark
email;internet:mark.little@arjuna.com
title:Chief Architect
version:2.1
end:vcard