RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720

Sorry Asir but if you want to allow for a WSDL-Dialect EPR to return 
anything but WSDL then I would suggest you open up a new issue and explain 
this totally non-interoperable usecase - and propose very clear text for 
this situation because you're basically saying that endpoints can lie 
about what they're going to return.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
07/24/2009 05:26 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720






It is not the usual case but possible. 
 
Just like the HTTP Get response, the Transfer Get response is at most 
subject to the ?best efforts? of the hosting server.
 
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:14 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720
 

Are you suggesting that an EPR in a mex:MetadataSection@Dialect=WSDL 
section can return xsd instead of WSDL in response to a t.Get()? 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 


Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
07/24/2009 04:00 PM 


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720
 








It should be noted that the state maintenance of a metadata resource is at 
most subject to the "best efforts" of the hosting server. The hosting 
server may change the representation of a resource, may remove a resource 
entirely, or may bring back a resource that was deleted. And, a metadata 
resource state may evolve over time. 
  
So, there aren?t any grounds to impose any state maintenance related MUST 
requirements on a metadata resource. 
  
Regards, 
  
Asir S Vedamuthu 
Microsoft Corporation 
  
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720 
  

For any _one_ metadata resource it always returns the same QName 
(Dialect). In other words, a metadata resource that returns WSDL today 
will not return Policy tomorrow.  There is no optionality about it.   The 
text is: 
  As a result, the metadata returned by the Get request to a metadata 
resource's endpoint may be limited to a particular metadata type 
(@Dialect) and identifier (@Identifier). 
When would the metadata from a T.Get() _not_ be limited to a particular 
dialect?  If its WSDL today and WSDL tomorrow, when would it ever return 
metadata from a different dialect? 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 

Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
07/24/2009 02:00 PM 
 


To
"ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Doug 
Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
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> 
Subject
RE: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720

 
 









+1 to Ashok. This is an attempt to clarify.

Read your comment on MAY. We simply do not understand why the MAY should 
be changed to MUST. The WS-MetadataExchange does not impose any such 
limitations on a metadata resource.

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok 
malhotra
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:26 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720

Doug, I would rather keep the second para as it makes the use of the MEX 
dialect explicit.
Let's discuss on the call and see how others feel..  This is not a 
showstopper!
All the best, Ashok


Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Hi Ashok,
>   it looks good - just a couple of minor suggested edits.
>
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
> *ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 07/24/2009 11:00 AM
> Please respond to
> ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
>
>
> 
> To
>                  "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> cc
> 
> Subject
>                  Suggested Wording to Resolve Issues 6719 and 6720
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Attached
> -- 
> All the best, Ashok and Asir
> [attachment "Wording for Issue 6719 and 6720.doc" deleted by Doug 
> Davis/Raleigh/IBM]