W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Question regarding the availability of services (and resources)

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:57 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201212245@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Smith, Kevin, VF-Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-powderwg@w3.org>


Kevin, Phil,

Let me first thank you for your answers. I should have been more
precisely:
I was actually looking for a _vocabulary_ rather than a concrete
solution
regarding a certain layer/technology ;)

But anyway, thanks, again - I'll keep looking around ...

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group [mailto:Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: Phil Archer; Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: SWD WG; public-powderwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Question regarding the availability of services 
> (and resources)
> 
> SOAP-POWDER? That will never wash... 
> 
> Hi Michael - I would have thought the use case below was more 
> efficiently dealt with in either the transport layer (load balancer
> configurations) or in front-end application logic (e.g. HTTP 
> proxy/Access layer/Application container) than with a POWDER DR.  
> 
> Cheers
> Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: 20 July 2007 11:32
> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: SWD WG; public-powderwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question regarding the availability of services (and
> resources)
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I may have misunderstood but I'm not sure that POWDER is the 
> best helper
> 
> here. We deal with generalised metadata that can be applied 
> to lots of things at once rather than the sort of use case 
> you describe.
> 
> That said, I can see that we're going to face the same issue 
> before long. Some of us are working on a project that will 
> see a service that will handle Description Resources and talk 
> to its clients over SOAP (the
> 
> inevitable SOAP-POWDER made manifest...) but if our service 
> is slow, clients will want to talk to a mirror or some other 
> service. Hmmm... 
> maybe this is a job for the Rule Interchange Format folk 
> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/)?
> 
> Phil.
> 
> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> > 
> > All,
> > 
> > I've got a (maybe dumb) question regarding the availability of 
> > services (and resources), or better say how to describe and handle
> this.
> > This may as well concern the 'Best Practice Recipes for 
> Publishing RDF 
> > Vocabularies' deliverable [1], but might also touch POWDER-WG [2]
> issues
> > -
> > I'm unsure about it ...
> > 
> > 
> > Now, here comes our problem. When developing SW applications, we 
> > frequently encounter the following situation: Say, there are two 
> > external
> services
> > A and B.
> > In our SW application I'd like to state that per default service A 
> > should be used, but in case A is not available (or has too big 
> > latency), service B
> must
> > be used.
> > 
> > What I've gathered so far (but I must admit, I did not read 
> each and 
> > every post in all the mailing lists ;) is that:
> > 
> > + The 'POWDER: Use Cases and Requirements' document [3] also tackles
> >   this issues, IMHO, but I can't find a hook for our problem;
> > 
> > + The Web Services Policy Working Group [4] has published a policy
> >   model in its 'Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework' [5]; 
> though AFAIK
> >   this is not based on RDF, and I don't know if REST-interfaces are 
> > addressed
> >   equally.
> > 
> > So, I guess the question would be: Is there a common (RDF-based) 
> > vocabulary (along with some standardised rules) available 
> that would 
> > allow us to handle the above described setup on a generic, 
> declarative 
> > level?
> > 
> > Any thoughts & pointers welcome!
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 	Michael
> > 
> > BTW: Please note that - in my understanding - the same might 
> >      be applicable for resources (or repositories), and equally
> >      one could extend it regarding QoS issues.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20070525/
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/
> > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PR-ws-policy-20070706/
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
> >  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management  
> JOANNEUM 
> > RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, 
> > AUSTRIA
> > 
> >  <office>
> >     phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)   
> >    e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
> >       web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
> > 
> >  <private>
> >    mobile: +43-660-7621761
> >       web: http://www.sw-app.org/
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 20:17:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:11 GMT