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: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:39:52 -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: <5AAAA6322448AA41840FC4563A30D6E84399CA1880@NA-EXMSG-C122.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Wu,

If we are going to use your example of Infoset usage as a template for all specifications, then we have the following suggestions:


1)

Suggest property template wording to go from:

This optional element conveys the [endto endpoint] property.

To be:

This OPTIONAL element (of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType) provides the value for the [endto endpoint]  property.

This involves changing the XML definition to match as well (it is currently "endpoint-reference").  Mostly the XML definitions are correct.



2)

There is no need to define standard addressing headers again here in the Eventing spec (like wsa:To).  Thus [event source] is not required.



3)

Infoset property names should be the same as the associated XML element names.  Thus it should be: [endto] not [endto endpoint].



4)

There should be a description associated with each Infoset property definition.

This suggests a few basic principles:

a.      Don't redefine standard headers (avoid duplication)

b.      Use the name of the element as the name of the Infoset property (don't reinvent names)

c.      All Infoset properties should be defined and have descriptions

d.      The mapping from Infoset to XML representation should also contain appropriate description and make it as clear as possible what is happening.

e.      Make sure to use valid types (like wsa:EndpointReferenceType) in all definitions Infoset and XML.

Are there more principles that we have missed?

--Geoff


From: Chou, Wu (Wu) [mailto:wuchou@avaya.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:18 AM
To: Geoff Bullen; Doug Davis
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS-Eventing issue 6424 proposal

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<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

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, 24 February 2009 15:40:39 GMT

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