Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal

Hi Ashok, 
Sounds good to me
thanks
Katy



From:
ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
To:
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Date:
15/12/2009 13:21
Subject:
Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal



Yes, that's fine.  We can discuss on the call today.  Should I open a 
new issue? 
All the best, Ashok


Katy Warr wrote:
>
> Hi Ashok
>
> I understand your points, but I think that they are wider than the 
> issue (6463) under discussion.  Your concerns relate to aspects of the 
> spec that I have not proposed changing under this issue.  How about 
> discussing them under a separate issue so we do not overload this one?
>
> Best regards
> Katy
>
>
> From:                  ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> To:            public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Cc:            "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> Date:                  14/12/2009 18:25
> Subject:               Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex 
GetMetadata - 
> Marked up   proposal
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Asir, Hi Katy:
> I looked at the example you sent out and I have 2 questions.
>
> 1. Look at the snippet below
>
> <mex:MetadataSection
>
> (53)            Dialect='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
>
> (54) 
>  Identifier='http://services.example.org/stockquote/schemas'>
>
> (55)          <mex:MetadataReference>
>
> (56)            <wsa:Address>
>
> (57)              http://services.example.org/stockquote/schemas
>
> (58)            </wsa:Address>
>
> (59)          </mex:MetadataReference>
>
> (60)        </mex:MetadataSection>
>
>
> Why is the Schema address duplicated?
>
> 2.  Do we really need the mex:Metadata wrapper?  Why can't we put the
> mex:MetadataSection (s) directly within
> wsa:Metadata ?
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Katy.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Here are some initial comments on the proposal.
> >
> > 
> >
> > >In Example 8-1, a [WS-Addressing] endpoint reference to a service
> > endpoint contains the metadata to allow requesters to issue a
> > GetMetadata request against it
> >
> > 
> >
> > We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide
> > sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue a
> > GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how can
> > a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the underlying
> > protocol transport?
> >
> > 
> >
> > We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide an
> > example that provides sufficient binding information, including
> > policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
> >
> > 
> >
> > >As an alternative to using MetadataLocation (lines 08-17), the
> > WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the appropriately attached policy
> > could have been embedded directly into the MetadataSection.  The
> > embedded WSDL approach was used in example Example 7.1 to pass
> > metadata in the EPR.
> >
> > 
> >
> > The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1
> > describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two
> > different use cases. It might help to show case an example that
> > illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to
> > attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap
> > binding.
> >
> > 
> >
> > We will be more than happy to work with Katy to prepare a revised
> > proposal.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> >
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> > 
> >
> > *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Katy Warr
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 10:42 AM
> > *To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Asir Vedamuthu
> > *Subject:* Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked
> > up proposal
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > Following my action to create a markup version of the proposal for bug
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463, please find the
> > marked up document attached.  The changes are all in Section 8 (and an
> > example is moved from section 7).
> >
> >
> >
> > Asir,
> >
> > The difference between your example and my previous one is primarily
> > that you have embedded the WSDL metadata within the EPR, rather than
> > using Policy Attachments. 
> >
> > Whilst both approaches work, I believe that we should have a wider
> > variation of examples within the specification in order to illustrate
> > different features and usage scenarios. From my experience, a wide
> > range of examples is of great benefit to developers.  Embedded WSDL is
> > already illustrated in example 7-1. 
> >
> > In this particular example (8.1), policy attachments also work very
> > well as it provides a mechanism to associate policy with a single
> > operation without having the whole WSDL included within the EPR.
> >
> > As a suggested compromise, I've included the policy attachments
> > example (8-1) in the proposal attached to this mail, but added a
> > detailed explanation below it in order to aid understanding.  I have
> > also added some text to say that the WSDL could be embedded, as an
> > alternative approach.
> >
> > Regards
> > Katy
> >
> >
> > 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 
> >
> > /Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> > 3AU/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU