RE: [wsn] Issues Verification: 2.25, 2.36 and 2.53

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Hi David,

You are making a good point, but that is besides the one I meant. Just
to clarify ...

My concern with the current wording is that - it specifies a constraint
(perhaps unintentional) that in order for an NP to support any resource
view, it must also support the spec defined resource view.

Your point about treating the spec defined resource view as a *unit* is
perfectly valid too, IMHO.

Thanks,
Sanjay

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
>Sent: Monday, Jun 13, 2005 8:26 AM
>To: Patil, Sanjay
>Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsn] Issues Verification: 2.25, 2.36 and 2.53
>
>
>This is a good point.
>
>I think the underlying concern is that, while it is certainly possible
>to support other resource views, this particular view is a unit.  For
>example, if you support TopicExpression, you should also support
>FixedTopicSet, and if you include any TopicExpression or
>TopicExpressionDialect properties, they must mean what they say they
>mean.  Clearly, the current text doesn't quite say that and needs to be
>tweaked.
>
>Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
>>I found the agreed approach for 2.36 and 2.53 being 
>incorporated by the
>>latest (j) version of the BaseN specification.
>>
>>Regarding 2.25, I have the following comment:
>>
>>This issue is about the normative dependency on WSRP and WSRL. One of
>>the action items in this regard was to make it optional for the
>>NotificationProducer to be a WS-Resource.
>>
>>The related text from the latest (j) version of BaseN reads 
>as follows:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
>>----------------------
>>In addition to the message exchanges described in this 
>specification, a
>>NotificationProducer MAY 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. If it does so, tthe Resource Properties 
>document defined
>>by the NotificationProducer MUST include a reference to the following
>>resource property elements: ....
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
>>----------------------
>>
>>My interpretation of the above text is that - If a 
>NotificationProducer
>>supports WSRP message exchanges, then it must support the resource
>>properties defined by the BaseN specification. I don't think that was
>>our intent. I don't think it is reasonable to prohibit a
>>NotificationProducer from being a WS-Resource and supporting entirely
>>different set of resource properties than the ones identified 
>by BaseN.
>>I think our intent was to say that, in addition to the bespoke methods
>>defined by BaseN, a NotificationProducer may optionally support --
>>access to a well defined set of resource properties via the WSRP
>>protocol.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Sanjay
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>