RE: [wsrf] Comments on wsrf-ws_resource-1.2-spec-wd-07

["Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>]

As I recall the previous discussion, the issue resolved around the
normative MUST in "An identifier of the resource MUST be represented in
any reference to a WS-Resource."

The issue seems to be (and I don't pretend to be able to answer this
question but would be VERY interested in the answer):

Can one refer to a WS-Resource without a Resource identifier?
	If not, then use of an identifier is a necessity and not
normative (small "must").
	If so, why are we requiring the use of an identifier?  Is the
use of an identifier necessary for interoperability, in which case it
would be normative?
	If so and it is not necessary for interoperability, then it is a
recommendation and we should probably say MAY (with a strong
recommendation to do so).

Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
802 765-4337
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:42 AM
To: Murray, Bryan P.; Wilson, Kirk D
Cc: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Comments on wsrf-ws_resource-1.2-spec-wd-07





One reason it is now difficult to relate the terms "resource identifier"
and "reference to a WS-Resource" is that I removed (per the resolution
to
issue 127) the following text which related these 2 concepts:
"An identifier of the resource MUST be represented in any reference to a
WS-Resource. and MUST appear as part of any message to a WS-Resource to
allow the WS-Resource to disambiguate the resource targeted by the
message.
The precise location of the resource identifier in a message to a
WS-Resource is dependent on the protocol binding used to interact with
the
WS-Resource endpoint but is normatively defined in the appropriate
WS-Addressing binding specification. For example, [WSA - SOAP] defines
the
binding of message addressing properties for the SOAP protocol."

It is not clear to me that this text repeats any part of WS-Addressing -
it
is a description of the WS-RF usage of EPRs.
I would agree with Kirk's observation and suggest that we reinstate some
or
all of the above text. At the very least, it would seem that we should
still state: "An identifier of the resource MUST be represented in any
reference to a WS-Resource. "

Comments?

Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
IBM Hursley Lab, UK
ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com


 

             "Murray, Bryan

             P."

             <bryan.murray@hp.
To 
             com>                      "Wilson, Kirk D"

                                       <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>, Ian

             06/09/2005 20:48          Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,

                                       <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>

 
cc 
 

 
Subject 
                                       RE: [wsrf] Comments on

                                       wsrf-ws_resource-1.2-spec-wd-07

 

 

 

 

 

 





The reason ResourceIdentifier is NOT used is that an EPR does not
provide "identity" for a resource. An EPR is only a reference to a
resource.

The use and rules associated with reference parameters is covered in
WS-Addressing and should not be covered in this spec.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:08 PM
To: ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrf] Comments on wsrf-ws_resource-1.2-spec-wd-07

There now seems to be three concepts used with the space two pages:

             Resource Identifier
             Reference to a WS-Resource (which is structurally tied to
WS-Addressing)
             And, in the SOAP example: SomeDisambiguatorElement

These three concepts are never explicitly related to one other.
Obviously, SomeDisabmiguator is part of the reference to a WS-Resource
(ReferenceParameters).  Further, I assume, after carefully trying to
connect things that are in the text, that the Resource Identifier is at
least one possible "disambiguator element".  If so, would be clearer to
use <ResourceIdentifier>R1</ResourceIdentifier> rather than
<SomeDisambiguatorElement> in the example? After all, the text does say
that "R1" "identifies" the resource


Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
802 765-4337