W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: WSA From

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:20:20 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCDB980A7.3220D858-ON85257110.00747C65-85257110.007537FD@us.ibm.com>
In many B2B scenarios with which I am familiar, the "From" is used to 
identify the party that
sent the message. It is not intended to be some sort of physical endpoint 
(typically) but a logical
identifier that serves to identify the party (e.g. http://www.ibm.com/)

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 02/09/2006 07:09:39 AM:

> 
> I guess I don't understand what the wsa:From EPR is then. What is 
> the recipient supposed to do with this EPR (as opposed to ReplyTo or
> other WSA-defined EPRs)? What are these SLA properties really about 
> in other words? If you have some EPR for which these SLAs are 
> required, doesn't it make sense to define the semantics for EPR 
> similarly to the way semantics are explicit for ReplyTo et al? As 
> Conor noted, there are no defined semantics for wsa:From, and I 
> guess I also don't see why this couldn't be simply a URI (extensible
> with anyAttribute).
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> -JohnK
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of ext Paul 
Fremantle
> > Received: Thu Feb 09 12:00:15 EET 2006
> > To: tom@coastin.com
> > Cc: Conor P. Cahill, Mark Little, Cahill, Conor P, public-ws-
> addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: WSA From
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > +1. I think its more useful as an EPR. For example, I can imagine 
putting
> > some SLA related info in the From extensibility points.
> > 
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > On 2/8/06, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Conor P. Cahill wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I would prefer that we keep the syntax for this "will hardly ever be
> > > used" feature to be retained as in the CR (namely an EPR).
> > >
> > > Making the syntax "simpler" would take away some of the "hardly ever
> > > used" uses people might make of wsa:from.
> > >
> > > Tom Rutt
> > >
> > > >>If it's optional, why not have it as a full-blown EPR anyway?
> > > >>To be honest, I'd also be happy with something rather than
> > > >>nothing, but I'd be interested in knowing reasons for URI
> > > >>rather than EPR.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >EPRs are generally used when I intend to dereference them to]
> > > >communicate with another party.   At this point there's no
> > > >processing rules that I would use to make use of expanded
> > > >fields in an EPR.
> > > >
> > > >Of course, <From> could have xs:anyAttribute and an
> > > >xs:any sub-element definition so that in your particular
> > > >environment anything could be added.  Just that the basic
> > > >model from From is identifiying the other party -- which
> > > >seems to be what I've heard here.
> > > >
> > > >Conor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> > > Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> > 
> > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> > paul@wso2.com
> > 
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 21:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT