I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego meeting (e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in some situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. Ian. At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
All,
In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. The current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs is all that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we should. But this should be discussed.
Andrew
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org