W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > February 2009

RE: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal

From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:49:04 -0800
To: "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5AAAA6322448AA41840FC4563A30D6E84399953AED@NA-EXMSG-C122.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Hi Wu,
There are a number of questions raised from your proposal.

1.      Is it possible to check that the Infoset description will actually produce the XML enclosed in the spec (and the examples in the spec)?  How can the editors and the WG in general be sure the two descriptions remain compatible?

2.      If there are inconsistencies between Infoset and XML, who wins?

3.      In all the examples in Addressing Core [1], they explain the mapping between Infoset and XML. For example, below Example 3.2 in Addressing Core it says:
This message would have the following property values:
*        [destination]: "http://example.com/business/client1"
*        [action]: "http://example.com/fabrikam/mail/DeleteAck"
*        [message id]: "http://example.com/someotheruniquestring"
*        [relationship]: ("http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/reply", "http://example.com/someuniquestring")

It would seem like we should also do this too, to be consistent?  Or does this make the spec harder to read?

4.      Are there any files, other that the spec itself, that need to be created or updated, associated with doing this work?  For example, is there a normative file that contains just the Infoset definitions, similar to a schema file, that would be used by various tools?

5.      If Infoset is seen as the normative description, what should we interop on?  Do we all agree to still interop on the XML format?  Do we need to interop on more than one format in order to prove the Infoset description is valid?

6.      If WG decides to do this, it needs to be done for all 5 specs.  Is the WG up for that work?


From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chou, Wu (Wu)
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal


Your observation is roughly right, since we try to use the original text as much as possible and minimize the changes for a first draft. Here is the color marked copy with all changes in red color for comparison.


- Wu Chou.

Wu Chou, IEEE Fellow, Ph.D. | Director |Avaya Labs Research | AVAYA | 233 Mt. Airy Road| Rm. 2D48 | Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 | Voice/Fax: 908-696-5198 / 908-696-5401 | wuchou@avaya.com<mailto:wuchou@avaya.com>
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:49 PM
To: Chou, Wu (Wu)
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal

 its hard to tell what's changed w/o redlines.  It appears like the section that lists the abstract properties (3.1) is the only new stuff - is that correct?

STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com

"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

02/03/2009 03:28 PM





WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal

Wu Chou, IEEE Fellow, Ph.D. | Director |Avaya Labs Research | AVAYA | 233 Mt. Airy Road| Rm. 2D48 | Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 | Voice/Fax: 908-696-5198 / 908-696-5401 | wuchou@avaya.com<blocked::mailto:wuchou@avaya.com>
 [attachment "wse_6424_2.pdf" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 22:49:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:46 UTC