> 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 :-) ).
I don;t think WSDL 1.1 or SOAP 1.1 was or is a mistake. I don't think
adopting
WS-Addressing as submitted is a mistake either.
So, while the WG in W3C gets formed and produces its
work, my claim is that
we should move to WS-Addressing as submitted to W3C
(resolving issue WSRF43)
and not continue to consider some abstract wrapper
over the EPR as the
"ws-reference" suggestions discussed at
the F2F.
With regards the addition of reference properties,
we will need to consider
if in fact they are needed at all in WSRF. I
suspect that existing implementations
will have to update to the new WS-Addressing anyway,
but this update appears
relatively minor.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
Anish Karmarkar <>
wrote on 08/12/2004 04:05:23 AM:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
