RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
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
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.
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
Steve Tuecke wrote:
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
Imagine I was behind schedule writing the WSDL for something based on WSRF. Which versions of various specifications should I be using now that are approximately in sync? Clearly I should not be specific as to how state is represented in an endpointer, or other details that are highly unstable. But what versions of the WSA/WSDL/WSRF specs should be I be using, and where do they live? -steve
Steve, I'll jump in here for Steve. There are a couple of things to consider. The GT4 distro is using the March submission specifications for WSRF and WSN. These documents are available from http://www.oasis-open.org in the documents section (labeled march). Those submission documents reference an older version of WS-addressing (Only place I could find that online was at BEA http://dev2dev.bea.com/technologies/webservices/ws-addressing.jsp). On a related note the OGSA Basic Profile 1.0 is currently in progress and currently references the November 2004 specification from WSRF and the August submission of WS-Addressing. The BP work has a way to go... Tom Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. —Albert Einstein T o m M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Steve Loughran <steve_loughran@h pl.hp.com> To Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf cc .org "'OGSA-WG'" <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org>, "Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)" <A.Djaoui@rl.ac.uk> 01/24/2005 06:45 Subject AM Re: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution Steve Tuecke wrote:
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
Imagine I was behind schedule writing the WSDL for something based on WSRF. Which versions of various specifications should I be using now that are approximately in sync? Clearly I should not be specific as to how state is represented in an endpointer, or other details that are highly unstable. But what versions of the WSA/WSDL/WSRF specs should be I be using, and where do they live? -steve
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:02 -0500, Tom Maguire wrote:
Steve, I'll jump in here for Steve. There are a couple of things to consider. The GT4 distro is using the March submission specifications for WSRF and WSN. These documents are available from http://www.oasis-open.org in the documents section (labeled march). Those submission documents reference an older version of WS-addressing (Only place I could find that online was at BEA http://dev2dev.bea.com/technologies/webservices/ws-addressing.jsp).
By the way, while the documents refer to a really old version of WS-A, the GT4 implementation actually updated them to the 2004/03 version (due to .Net moving to that version). /Sam
On a related note the OGSA Basic Profile 1.0 is currently in progress and currently references the November 2004 specification from WSRF and the August submission of WS-Addressing. The BP work has a way to go...
Tom
Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. —Albert Einstein T o m M a g u i r e
STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Steve Loughran <steve_loughran@h pl.hp.com> To Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf cc .org "'OGSA-WG'" <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org>, "Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)" <A.Djaoui@rl.ac.uk> 01/24/2005 06:45 Subject AM Re: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
Steve Tuecke wrote:
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
Imagine I was behind schedule writing the WSDL for something based on WSRF.
Which versions of various specifications should I be using now that are approximately in sync? Clearly I should not be specific as to how state is represented in an endpointer, or other details that are highly unstable. But what versions of the WSA/WSDL/WSRF specs should be I be using, and where do they live?
-steve
-- Sam Meder <meder@mcs.anl.gov> The Globus Alliance - University of Chicago 630-252-1752
Samuel Meder wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:02 -0500, Tom Maguire wrote:
Steve, I'll jump in here for Steve. There are a couple of things to consider. The GT4 distro is using the March submission specifications for WSRF and WSN. These documents are available from http://www.oasis-open.org in the documents section (labeled march). Those submission documents reference an older version of WS-addressing (Only place I could find that online was at BEA http://dev2dev.bea.com/technologies/webservices/ws-addressing.jsp).
By the way, while the documents refer to a really old version of WS-A, the GT4 implementation actually updated them to the 2004/03 version (due to .Net moving to that version).
/Sam
On a related note the OGSA Basic Profile 1.0 is currently in progress and currently references the November 2004 specification from WSRF and the August submission of WS-Addressing. The BP work has a way to go...
The latest iteration on the W3C site is december 08, 2004: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-addr-core-20041208/ This is what I'm tempted to use in my WSDL. While I can get away with vague handwaving in the docs, the need to hard code URLs like xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2004/12/addressing" into WSDL forces your hand, somewhat.
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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: 21 January 2005 20:00 To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); Stephen Pickles; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); 'OGSA-WG' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution 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 <http://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 <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 <http://www.globus.org/>
participants (6)
-
Ian Foster -
Samuel Meder -
Stephen Pickles -
Steve Loughran -
Steve Tuecke -
Tom Maguire