Steve Graham wrote:
>
> Folks:
> Please see: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/.
> This is a submission request to the W3C by BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP and
> Sun to submit WS-Addressing to W3C as input to the standardization process.
>
> I would like to recommend that we consider using WS-Addressing as
> submitted to the W3C in our work in WS-RF and WS-N. Note, our use of
> WSDL 1.1 (which was a submission to W3C, just like WS-Addressing is now)
> is a precedence for this sort of pre-requisite.
>
> I formally move that we use WS-Addressing as our only means of reference
> mechanism. In particular, I propose that we avoid abstracting the
> reference mechanism, such as BPEL has done, in light of this submission
> of WS-Addressing to W3C. Note, this minimizes the perturbation to the
> currently specified message exchanges, and reduces migration impediments
> for implementations that are building to the 1.1 and 1.2 versions of our
> specifications.
>
I think this is a very good first step.
But I don't see how this changes things for us in the short term. There
are now two submissions made to W3C [1] [2] that "address" the same
problem domain. There is also an effort to get a charter [3][4][5][6][7]
(pl. note that references [5], [6] and [7] are accessible to W3C member
only) for a W3C Working Group. Given that there are two submissions and
that there *may* be a W3C WG, it would in fact make more sense to
abstract the reference mechanism. This will also future proof our specs
to what ever comes out of a W3C WG (if it happens).
-Anish
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/02/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Jun/0000.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2004Aug/0003.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0001.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0002.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws/2004May/0003.html
