Steve Graham wrote:
>
> Anish:
> This changes things significantly IMHO.
>
> The current specs in WSN and WSRF are written to leverage WS-Addressing.
> I understood that there was some concern from the community that this
> choice was not wonderful due to the "current ambiguous position of
> WS-Addressing with respect to standards". Now that this ambiguity has
> been clarified we can minimize perturbation to our specs by going with
> the submitted version of WS-Addressing as the basis.
>
I'm not sure how this ambiguity has been clarified. It is just a
submission (with clear IRP decl.) not a standard (yes, I know so is SOAP
1.1 and WSDL 1.1 -- but that does not mean that we make the same mistake
thrice :-) ). There are two such W3C submissions. The important thing is
to have a convergence in a WG/TC where issues can be resolved and a
single spec that addresses the 'referencing/addressing' needs become a
standard. The good news is that, it seems like, things are heading in
that direction, but it is still a while away.
> With respect to the result of the W3C WG formation process, we can take
> two approaches:
> a) if the WG is not successfully formed, we could consider what to do at
> that point, either stay with the submitted WS-Addressing or go for the
> abstracted model like BPEL chose.
>
> b) if the WG is successfully formed, then I recommend we go with
> WS-Addressing as submitted and when the WG finishes, (these things do
> take time as you well know) then produce a version 2.0 of the WSN and
> WSRF specs to reference the result of the W3C workgroup's recommendation.
>
I'm hoping that such a WG will fasttracked (as mentioned in the charter
proposal from the WS-Addressing authors)
> Net/net, WS-Addressing meets our needs, and now has clear standing
> within an open standards body.
I don't see how it has a clear standing within an open stds body?
> By going with WS-Addressing we greatly
> minimize the perturbations in the existing specs and we do minimize the
> change for developers and exploiters going from version 1.1 or 1.2 of
> our specs to the currently active version 1.3. Furthermore, we avoid the
> interoperability issue that is introduced by abstracting the reference
> with a dialect. Exploiters and developers won't have to worry about
> "which reference dialects can I used" for any particular Web Service
> he/she wants to interact with.
>
If we adopt the latest version of ws-addressing, there will some interop
issues, as new things (reference parameters) have been added.
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
>
>
>
> *Anish Karmarkar <>*
>
> 08/10/2004 03:57 PM
>
>
> To
> Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> ,
> Subject
> [wsrf] Re: [wsn] WS-Addressing submitted to W3C as input
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
