I have to agree with Savas w.r.t. Reference Parameters. The issue at hand in the WS-A working group was the 'identity' semantic of Reference Properties vs URIs. I do not think that reference parameters will be removed from the spec and reference parameters can be used for service-side dispatch. Tom Savas Parastatidis wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with some of what Steve said bellow :-))
The change does make a difference in implementations because if the information that was meant to be included in the Reference Properties is now encoded in the Address property of an EPR (the URI) it cannot be echoed back as SOAP headers. This was part of the semantics of Reference Properties.
For a resource-oriented specification like WSRF, however, using URIs to identify resources is a good solution. On this I agree with Steve. The semantics of WSRF do not have to change even if it wasn't abstracted away from WS-Addressing. What is lost is the ability to echo back as SOAP headers any resource-specific information that may be required by a SOAP intermediary to identify the targeted resource. If having SOAP headers is a requirement, though, I don't see why Reference Parameters couldn't be used.
So, while Reference Properties have been removed, Reference Parameters are still there and while I would personally like to see them go too, I don't think it'll happen. The semantics of Reference Parameters are slightly different but I don't see why WSRF couldn't use them, if it needed to, instead of Reference Properties to carry resource-specific information.
Best regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf
Of
Steve Tuecke Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:55 PM To: Ian Foster Cc: 'Stephen Pickles'; 'OGSA-WG'; Steve Tuecke; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
As far as I can tell, this decision has basically no effect on WSRF. The argument being made by some in the WS-A working group is that it
is
equivalent and more true to the Web to carry a resource identifier as part of the EPR address, rather than in a separate ResourceProperties field -- that is, the resource reference should all be in the URI, rather than split between a URI and separate resource properties. Implementation-wise it certainly makes very little difference. And
the
WSRF working group had already abstracted the WS-Resource reference
and
access pattern, so that it is not tightly coupled to WS-A and
reference
properties anyway, so WSRF specification-wise it makes no difference.
-Steve
On Jan 21, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Ian Foster wrote:
I think the technical term is "carefully architected set of specifications" not "house of cards" (-:
Regards -- Ian.
At 05:10 PM 1/21/2005 +0000, Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote:
Well, it probably doesn't, because WSRF is now decoupled from WS-Addressing through the definition of the "abstract" resource Access Pattern, which defines different embodiments for different ways of accessing
state.