I am
justly rebuked. I wrote in a moment of panic and chose my words
unwisely.
Having
digested the comments of those more expert than myself, my
current
understanding is that:
1)
OGSA is unaffected.
2)
WSRF is affected,
3) but
the WSRF TC in OASIS was prepared. Changes to the specs,
if indeed there are any that haven't
already been addressed,
should be minor.
4)
Some examples probably will need revisiting.
5) Some (not all) implementations of earlier
drafts of WSRF are affected
(ours is one). Once again,
the changes should be minor, but
might come at the price of breaking
compatibility with existing
clients. But I won't
lose much sleep over losing backwards compatibility
with early versions of
draft specifications.
6)
WSRF interoperability tests will need revisiting, but that's going
to
happen next
month anyway.
The
foundations of the "carefully architectured set of
specifications"
seem
solid enough to survive this tremor.
Best
regards,
Stephen
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.
Abdeslem
///////////////
-----Original
Message-----
From: Stephen Pickles [mailto:stephen.pickles@manchester.ac.uk]
Sent: 21
January 2005 17:05
To: 'Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)'; 'OGSA-WG'
Subject: RE:
[ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
Doesn't this make the
whole house of cards (WSRF and OGSA)
come tumbling down?
Please
tell me I'm wrong!
Stephen
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On
> Behalf Of
Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
> Sent: 21 January 2005 09:47
> To:
'OGSA-WG'
> Subject: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed
resolution
>
>
> Just in case you have not seen this, It
appears RefProps will
> be removed
> from EPR's. Something we
should discuss.
>
> Abdeslem
> /////////////////
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Ugo Corda
> Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33
> To: Mark Little; Mark
Baker
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue #1
proposed resolution
>
>
>
> Mark and
Mark,
> It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see
>
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001
.
>
> Ugo
>
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> Mark Little
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26
PM
> > To: Mark Baker
> > Cc:
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed
resolution
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark, I
have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as
> > you're
aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a
> > moment, I
don't see them vanishing in this release of the
> > specification.
That doesn't prevent us from debating their
> > utility (or lack
thereof), but I suspect it would be better
> > to take it off this
mailing list if we're to try to maintain
> > the timeline that was
proposed by the submitters and agreed
> > upon by the members of
the group. Who knows, there may be a
> > change in a subsequent
release?
> >
> > Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text
around, but it could
> > change the context of what was originally
intended. I didn't
> > mention the word "identification" at all in
the proposed
> text I said.
> >
> > Mark.
>
>
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief
Architect,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> >
www.arjuna.com
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> > To: "Mark Little"
<mark.little@arjuna.com>
> > Cc:
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 20,
2005 12:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
>
>
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> >
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote:
>
> > > I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to
> > be that they
> > will
> > > > stay
(rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and
> > > >
specifications
> > out
> > > > there that now rely
on them).
> > >
> > > This is a new spec we're
working on, no? Those
> implementations can
> > >
continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they
> currently
> > > depend upon. Nothing we do here can break them,
AFAICT.
> > >
> > > > I agree that the term
"identifier" can be
> > > > contentious. However, so can the
term "state". How about just
> > > > calling it/them
"additional information that referencing
> > > >
specifications [aka
> > using
> > > >
specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately
> >
> > address
> > the
> > > > endpoint
service"?
> > >
> > > >From my POV, there appears
to be agreement to removing
> the part of
> > >
>the
> > > spec that talks about using RefProps for
identification.
> > Adding "in
> > > order to
ultimately address" back in would be akin to
> undoing that
>
> > change. The point of the change, as I see it, is to get
> > identifying
> > > information out of the RefPs,
and into the URI, and I
> > consider that an
> > >
enormous improvement over the WS-A submission.
> > >
>
> > > That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only
>
> > > *why*.
> > >
> > > IMO,
identification is a "what".
> > >
> > >
Mark.
> > > --
> > > Mark Baker. Ottawa,
Ontario, CANADA.
> > http://www.markbaker.ca
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
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