[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsn] WSN and WSRF
+1 from me. Agree on all counts.
-- dims
Davanum Srinivas
Computer Associates Senior Architect, Web Services Group Tel: +1 508 628 8251 davanum.srinivas@ca.com From: David Hull
[mailto:dmh@tibco.com]
This is issue 2.2 in the issues list.Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:55 PM To: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsn] WSN and WSRF The WSN documents currently contain statements of the form "A [WSN component] MUST support the required message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties specification ...". While there is certainly a prima facie case for presenting entities with state and life cycles in a framework specifically designed for such entities, there are also several concerns with this approach. A natural alternative is simply to describe what message exchanges the components must support, drop any normative reference to WS-RF, and optionally add non-normative language describing how these operations map to WS-RF concepts. At this point, I would like to reiterate the arguments I'm aware of for this separation. I'm not sure what is the best process to use here, but I would like to get some idea of what level of agreement or disagreement there is with each of these arguments, and also what degree of importance they may be thought to have. Pragmatic Arguments
Structural arguments
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]