RE: [wsn] Value/weight added by WSRF

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Sanjay:
The wording is currently isolated to
each one of the portTypes.  The wording is that way in case WSRF redefines
WS-REsourceProperties to make different operations mandatory (we could
be more explicit in WS-BASEN, but then we would have an update issue if
WS-RP changes).  I am not sure how to further tighten the mandatory
dependency (GetResourceProperties is used to get the value of the ResourceProperties
associated with the NotificationProducer or SubscriptionManager).

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> 06/07/2004 11:30 AM

To:        Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>         cc:        wsn@lists.oasis-open.org         Subject:        RE: [wsn] Value/weight added by WSRF

>>  So,
regardless of whether we specify the semantics explicitly in BaseN as separate
operations or as constraints/restrictions on the  
>>  ResourceProperties,
the work is pretty much the same.  My position is that I would prefer
to reuse WSRF for as much of this as makes sense. 
 
Steve/David, 
 
Would it make sense to scope the
relationship to WSRF by specifying exactly what particular parts of WSRF
are used by which particular WS-Notification operations. This would make
the specification firm and exact in the sense that we will then not have
to deal with the numerous possibilities enabled by WSRF, while allowing
the intended reuse of WSRF.
 
The changes to the specification
will be such as -- remove the blanket statements such as "MUST
also support the required message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties
specification and MAY support the optional message exchanges defined in
the WS-ResourceProperties specification." and
define the dependency only within the contexts where  WSRF is actually
used.
 
 
Thanks,
Sanjay