W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: WS-Resource-Access FPWG

From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:32:10 -0400
Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <EC51F5A1-D50F-4041-B734-D36EED16B310@hitachisoftware.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Noah,
The current WD[1] of Transfer indicates that the scheme has been  
changed from soap:// to http://
thanks
-bob

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html

On Mar 26, 2009, at 11:25 AM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > What about adding a note to the WS specs saying what the
> > reservations are? So that even if they publish stuff the
> > TAG origin might not like, we can limit the scope the damage?
> >
> > Larry
>
> Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>
> > We can do that but the problem is that such notes fade into the
> > noise and are ignored.
>
> We do have the experience of having spent quite a lot of TAG time  
> working with the Web Services addressing working group to add a note  
> to Web Services Addressing Core that I believe is in the spirit of  
> what Larry suggests.  Specifically, in Oct. 2005 the TAG expressed a  
> concern that the WSA Addressing Core mechanisms permitted or perhaps  
> even encouraged the use of XML elements as opposed to URIs for  
> identification of Web Services endpoints.  After long discsussions,  
> the working group agreed [2] to a compromise resolution, which was  
> to include text that I think is very much in the spirit of the notes  
> that Larry proposes.  The particular text is not important here, but  
> it can be found in the email [2] and indeed in the final  
> specification [3].
>
> What is pertinent here is that the good practices signaled in the  
> agreed note are indeed often ignored in practice.  Ironically, one  
> of the particular concerns about WS-RA is that examples used in the  
> WS-Transfer submission appear to ignore the note we worked so hard  
> to agree on.  That is, a WS-Transfer GET is shown as follows [4]:
>
> <s:Envelope
>     xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
>     xmlns:wsa="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing"
>     xmlns:xxx="http://fabrikam123.example.com/resource-model" >
>   <s:Header>
>     <wsa:ReplyTo>
>       <wsa:Address>
>         soap://www.fabrikam123.example.org/pullport
>       </wsa:Address>
>     </wsa:ReplyTo>
>     <wsa:To>soap://www.example.org/repository</wsa:To>
>     <xxx:CustomerID>732199</xxx:CustomerID>
>     <xxx:Region>EMEA</xxx:Region>
>     <wsa:Action>
>       http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/transfer/Get
>     </wsa:Action>
>     <wsa:MessageID>
>       uuid:00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046
>     </wsa:MessageID>
>   </s:Header>
>   <s:Body/>
> </s:Envelope>
>
> I apologize in advance if my understanding of WS-Transfer and WSA is  
> faulty, but I'm fairly sure that the above is the result of mapping  
> into SOAP an EPR that addresses its endpoint not using only the URI  
> soap://www.example.org/repository (and we can quibble about the use  
> of the soap: URI scheme too, I suppose), but also the  
> <xxx:CustomerID> and <xxx:Region> elements.  If the introductory  
> examples for a core technology ignore the agreed direction, that's  
> discouraging (to me).
>
> So, there has indeed been a significant history of trying to deal  
> with such issues by getting notes included in the pertinent  
> specifications, and I think Ashok is right that the experience with  
> such efforts has been at best mixed.  The question is whether we  
> want to keep trying, and my impression is that a number of TAG  
> members are saying:  no, this is reaching the point of diminishing  
> returns.
>
> Noh
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Oct/0004
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0074.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/#resourceidentification
> [4] http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Transfer/#Get
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> 03/26/2009 10:48 AM
> Please respond to ashok.malhotra
>
>
>         To:        Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
>         cc:        noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org, "'Bob  
> Freund'" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
>         Subject:        Re: WS-Resource-Access FPWG
>
>
>
> We can do that but the problem is that such notes fade into the noise
> and are ignored.
> But certainly worth considering.
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > What about adding a note to the WS specs saying what the
> > reservations are? So that even if they publish stuff the
> > TAG origin might not like, we can limit the scope the damage?
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On  
> Behalf Of
> > ashok malhotra
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:58 PM
> > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Bob Freund
> > Subject: Re: WS-Resource-Access FPWG
> >
> > Personally, I think we should just let this go.  The TAG has  
> bigger fish
> > to fry.
> >
> > If we do want to ask for something, we should ask WS-RA to define  
> what
> > happens if you send
> > an http GET to the URI in an EPR.  The answer should not be a 404  
> or a
> > SOAP message.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >> I chatted with Bob a bit at the AC meeting this week.   We all  
> know that
> >> there have been some reservations on the part of individual TAG  
> members
> >> about about aspects of either WS-RA itself, or the ways in which  
> WS-RA
> >> uses technologies like WS-Addressing.  In particular, I've heard  
> concerns
> >> expressed about the extent to which WS-RA re-implements HTTP at a
> >> different level and the stack, and also the possibility that WS- 
> RA might
> >> encourage the use of WSA reference parameters for  
> identification.  If the
> >> TAG does intend to raise such concerns against WS-RA formally, Bob
> >> requests that we do so earlier rather than later.
> >>
> >> So, I would appreciate it if other TAG members would let me know  
> whether
> >> they wish to schedule discussion of such concerns.  I will collect
> >> responses and, based on them, decide about discussion  
> scheduling.   If I
> >> get no such responses, I will (after doublechecking with the TAG)  
> confirm
> >> to Bob that we do not currently expect to raise such issues  
> against WS-RA.
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Noah
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Noah Mendelsohn
> >> IBM Corporation
> >> One Rogers Street
> >> Cambridge, MA 02142
> >> 1-617-693-4036
> >> --------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
> >> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> >> 03/23/2009 04:27 PM
> >>
> >>         To:     www-tag@w3.org
> >>         cc:     public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org, (bcc:  
> Noah
> >> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> >>         Subject:        WS-Resource-Access FPWG
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear TAG
> >> The WS-Resource-Access working group, on 2009-03-17 published the  
> FPWD
> >> of five specifications and has begun public review:
> >> WS-Transfer[1]
> >> WS-Resource-Transfer[2]
> >> WS-Eventing[3]
> >> WS-Enumeration[4]
> >> WS-Metadata-Exchange[5]
> >>
> >> Emails to all known groups in several organizations that may have  
> an
> >> interest in these specifications will be sent in the near future.
> >>
> >> Prior to the start of the WS-Resource-Access working group, a TAG
> >> resolution[6] was published expressing concerns about several  
> details
> >> of some of these specifications, especially WS-Transfer.   Since  
> the
> >> WG is now under way, and on a tight nominal schedule, it would  
> benefit
> >> all involved if issues that might arise from your review were to be
> >> created earlier rather than later.  It is my hope that all issues  
> that
> >> might be raised against fundamental aspects of any of these
> >> specifications be created before Last Call if at all possible.
> >> To that end, would the TAG please respond with specific issues of
> >> concern that in the opinion of the TAG need to be resolved in these
> >> specifications at its earliest convenience.
> >> In any case, a response with issues, or a statement of no-issues  
> would
> >> be appreciated.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Bob Freund
> >> Chair, WS-Resource-Access Working Group
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-transfer-20090317/
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-resource-transfer-20090317/
> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-eventing-20090317/
> >> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-enumeration-20090317/
> >> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-metadata-exchange-20090317/
> >> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>




Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 16:32:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT