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

Re: Issue 6404 - proposal

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 08:18:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4A01AA60.4070203@oracle.com>
To: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "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>
 > If you have issues with understanding what is returned for each of 
the dialects defined by MEX (as you seem to state
>  below) then you should raise issues to the group

I have done that. It's bug 6719
All the best, Ashok


Geoff Bullen wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> We believe that the MEX dialect is quite useful and should be retained.
>
> If you have issues with understanding what is returned for each of the 
> dialects defined by MEX (as you seem to state below) then you should 
> raise issues to the group so that we can work through the problems. It 
> is very important that we have clear definitions for what should be 
> returned for each Dialect. If they are not clear, then they need to be 
> fixed. Once we all have a clear understanding of what each dialect 
> returns, we hope it will become clear that the MEX dialect actually 
> returns a useful set of dialects. Please raise issues for those 
> dialects that you do not understand (Policy, PolicyAttachment and 
> Schema seem to be mentioned below).
>
> --Geoff
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2009 12:46 PM
> *To:* Geoff Bullen
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> Geoff,
> whether or not the WG decides to define a way to retrieve multiple 
> dialects at once has nothing to do with the fact that "just the 
> dialects defined in MEX" doesn't work as a solution for 6404. As I 
> said, its an arbitrary list, most of them are meaningless, and since 
> it boils down to just "wsdl" anyway, people would be better off (and 
> less confused) to just asking for the WSDL. This leaves us with the 
> MEX dialect being unusable in any meaningful/interoperable way - hence 
> the original issue and proposal - let it be the default and mean 
> "everything I'm allowed to see".
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>*
>
> 02/23/2009 01:57 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> 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: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
> OK, Doug. Based on your comments below, we should wait to see your new 
> issue and its resolution before moving forwards on this one.
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:01 PM*
> To:* Geoff Bullen*
> Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> There are two problems with this. If "no dialect" means "everything I 
> can see" we'd still need to define a dialect for this - not a big deal 
> but, like I said, "no dialect" should just be a short cut for 
> something more explicit/verbose.
>
> But the real issue I have with this is that the definition of the MEX 
> dialect is a bit screwy. First it seems totally arbitrary. The dialect 
> URIs defined in MEX aren't really chosen for any particular reason 
> other than they're the list of dialects that the MEX authors just 
> happen to choose when they penned the spec. Not the most thoughtful 
> approach. As proof... what does the "policy" dialect mean? Policy by 
> itself is meaningless. It needs to be attached to something - like 
> WSDL elements. And what about the "policyAttachment" dialect? What 
> metadata does that return? So, out of the 5 dialects defined in MEX 
> we'd only return 2 - wsdl and xsd. But even then - what schema are we 
> returning? The xsd of the resource that would be returned by a 
> Transfer Get()? The xsd of the enum items? The xsd of the events if 
> its an event source? All of these? Some of them? This dialect feels a 
> little like a better defined "whateva" but still pretty useless since 
> after removing all of the meaningless/undefined URIs you're left with 
> just WSDL anyway.
>
> This however does raise another issue.... should people be forced to 
> define a dialect in order to get a bunch of metadata returned? For a 
> moment let's assume we defined MEX to mean "the dialects defined in 
> the MEX spec" - this one grouping is now well defined and 'special'. 
> Sure some other spec/profile could do the same thing but since we're 
> talking about a bootstrapping mechanism how do I know whether or not 
> the other side knows about this new special dialect URI? It seems we 
> should allow for people to define a grouping on the fly and be allowed 
> to specify a list of dialect URIs instead of just one. I think I've 
> mentioned this before but I think I'll finally get off my duff and 
> actually open an issue this time. :-) This would remove the need for a 
> dialect that means "what those crazy MEX author's thought was 
> important even though more than half of those dialects are 
> meaningless" - which means we can go back to my current proposal of 
> having MEX/nodialect == "everything I'm allowed to see".
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 02/20/2009 07:23 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> 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: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug,
> Trying to use your words to describe the two cases we propose, I get 
> the following:
> 1. “no dialect” = "everything I'm allowed to see"
> 2. “MEX dialect” = just the dialects defined in MEX
> This way point 2 remains the same definition as it is now. It allows a 
> client to return only the MEX dialects if required (rather than all of 
> them), which can be a useful subset grouping. Point 1 allows the 
> client to return all dialects (including app specific ones). If there 
> are no application dialects then point 1 and point 2 will return the 
> same thing.
> Does that make sense?
> --Geoff
>
> *
> From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2009 5:13 PM*
> To:* Geoff Bullen*
> Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> I think "no dialect" should be a shorthand for something and that 
> 'something' needs to be some dialect. We can change it from the 'mex' 
> dialect to something else, but since we're talking about a 
> bootstrapping situation where we (as a client) are talking to a bit of 
> an unknown entity (which is why we're using mex in the first place), 
> having the value of "no dialect" be something random doesn't sound 
> like an interoperable solution - we'd be back to the 'whateva' case - 
> which we determined is pretty useless. I don't see any reason not to 
> have "no dialect" == "the mex dialect" and have the mex dialect mean 
> "everything I'm allowed to see".
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 02/16/2009 05:26 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> 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: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
> Our intent is slightly different here. We would prefer that returning 
> metadata associated with the dialect:
>
> [Body]/mex:GetMetadata/mex:Dialect=http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-mex
>
> remain consistent and ONLY ever return metadata associated with 
> dialects defined in the MEX specification.
>
> The changes we suggest would only apply to the default case where no 
> dialect is specified.
> In this case it would normally return the same as above, unless it has 
> been redefined by a profile to return something else, including 
> Profile specific metadata dialects.
>
> Does that makes sense?
> --Geoff
>
> *
> From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:48 AM*
> To:* Geoff Bullen*
> Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> Geoff,
> Actually, the "default value" doesn't change - its the meaning of the 
> MEX dialect, no?
> So, we really should be tweaking the other paragraph - the one 
> starting with "barring...". And doesn't that cover the possibility of 
> someone else further constraining it?
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 02/10/2009 02:41 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> RE: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug,
> It does not appear that the wording:
>
> “When this element is not present, the implied value is the MEX dialect.”
>
> correctly expresses the sentiment that we agreed too earlier. Can we 
> suggest using something more like:
>
> “When this element is not present, the implied value is the MEX 
> dialect. However, the actual value may be defined by communities 
> within the context of particular application domains and could include 
> application specific metadata.”
>
> --Geoff
> *
>
> From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug 
> Davis*
> Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:49 PM*
> To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org*
> Subject:* Re: Issue 6404 - proposal
>
>
> Resending since the html doesn't show up in the archives.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> __________________
>
> With no more chatter on this one... here's my proposal:
>
> Define the absence of a Dialect to mean the MEX dialect - something like:
> [Body]/mex:GetMetadata/mex:Dialect
> When this element is present, the response MUST include only Metadata 
> Sections with the indicated dialect; if the receiver does not have any 
> Metadata Sections of the indicated dialect, the response MUST include 
> zero Metadata Sections. When this element is not present, the implied 
> value is the MEX dialect.
> <delete> there is no implied value and so the response may include 
> Metadata Sections with any dialect. </delete>
>
> And define the MEX dialect - add the following after the above text:
> [Body]/mex:GetMetadata/mex:Dialect="http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-mex"
> Barring some additional constraints, not defined by this 
> specification, specifying the MEX dialect in a GetMetadata request 
> message means that the service SHOULD return all available metadata 
> formats that this client is allowed to retrieve.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 01/29/2009 10:11 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> Re: Issue 6404 - use of "whatever"
>
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Along those line, it would seem that saying something like "barring 
> some negotiation, the absence of a Dialect value is equivalent tousing 
> the MEX dialect". Gives the freedom for someone to profile it later - 
> but otherwise we make sure "null" is well defined.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
> *Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
> 01/29/2009 09:06 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> Issue 6404 - use of "whatever"
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This issue is about defining the MEX dialect and defining what gets 
> returned. _
>
> _http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6404
>
> In particular, I was asked to provide an example of why it might be 
> useful, in the case where no dialect is specified in the GetMetadata 
> request, for the service itself to be able to decide what it would 
> return (the so-called “whatever” case). The other option would be for 
> this case to return all MEX sections.
>
> The best example I can provide for the “whatever” case is this:
>
> If the MEX specification gets “profiled” for a specific purpose, it 
> would be very useful to allow the profile to be able to specify what 
> metadata is to be returned in this default case (especially the 
> non-MEX defined metadata sections). If you do not do this then each 
> profile would have to define some separate dialect to mean “give me 
> all the metadata within my profile”. Thus the default case gives you 
> an over-loadable definition of “all” or perhaps “normal”, which can 
> include non-MEX defined sections.
>
> In a typical profiled case:
> Nothing = “return all metadata within my profile”
> MEX = “return all MEX dialects”
>
> If it is not a profiled implementation, the spec could be recommend 
> that the implementation return:
> Nothing = MEX = “return all MEX dialects”
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 15:33:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:59 GMT