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

[David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>]

Patil, Sanjay wrote:

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.
  

Just to be clear, I agree that the current draft says that, and I agree that it shouldn't say that.

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