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

RE: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal

From: Chou, Wu (Wu) <wuchou@avaya.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:18:19 -0500
Message-ID: <F81BDFA28AE48D4793E253362D1F7A747A0737@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
To: "Geoff Bullen" <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
Hi Geoff,
 
We add our answers/comments in line and thanks for your questions.
 
- Wu Chou

________________________________

From: Geoff Bullen [mailto:Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:49 PM
To: Chou, Wu (Wu); Doug Davis
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal



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? 

Wu: There is no requirement to mechanically produce xml from Infoset.
The mapping from Infoset to xml (WSDL) is normatively specified by the
standard. The Infoset and xml are from the same set of xml elements
specified by the standard.

 

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

Wu: This is a big "if" an it should not happen as explained in 1. But
even with this big "if", it follows the XML (WSDL), since the Infoset to
XML is normatively specified. 

 

 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? 

Wu: To minimize changes, we defined the mapping in the xml section,
instead of the Infoset section. This helps the readability and keeps the
structure of original standard. We are reluctant to split WS-Eventing
into three specs of core, soap/wsdl, and meta information as in
WS-Addressing.

 

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? 

Wu: No 

 

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?  

Wu: We interoperate on xml which is defined by the wsdl. Because the
Infoset and xml are equivalent, interoperating on xml is equivalent to
interoperating on Infoset. 

 

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

Wu: Adopting Infoset has many advantages. It is up to the WG to decide,
but there is a way to incorporate Infoset without changing the original
structure of the specs.

 

Cheers,

--Geoff


 

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

 

Doug,

 

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.

 

Thanks,

 

- 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

________________________________

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


Wu, 
 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? 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
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 

To

<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 

cc

	
Subject

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 Tuesday, 17 February 2009 16:19:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:45 GMT