W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:04:36 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020315140213.00dc24f0@gmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
At 04:41 AM 3/15/02, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
>Jeef,
>
>According to the information on the WS-I web site, the basic profile
>addresses SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, and UDDI 1.0. SOAP 1.1 is not the same as
>XMLP.


One of the things that the WG will have to do is evaluate the target 
versions of the spec, and possibly make some recommendations.

jeff

>  It seems to me that WS-I is focusing on making interoperability happen
>based on today's technology (a very good thing!!!). Right now we're in the
>process of defining tomorrow's technology. The two things are orthogonal.
>
>Anne
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:07 PM
> > To: Jacek Kopecky; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)
> >
> >
> > At 11:10 AM 3/14/02, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > >  Hi all,
> > >  let me try to pick the situation apart:
> > >
> > >  WS-I is here to provide best practices for WSDL and some
> > >profiles limiting WSDL. All for interoperability. All for WSDL
> > >1.1.
> >
> > Just to clarify a bit. The first (Basic) Profile that WS-I is setting out
> > to define encompasses more than just WSDL. It's XMLP (SOAP) +
> > WSDL + Schema
> > + UDDI. Basically everything one needs for end-to-end interop at a very
> > basic level--What can developers and clients count on being
> > there. How does one
> > use those specs. SOAP and WSDL are designed to support some very nice
> > extensibility frameworks; and that is one of the strengths of the
> > technology. But that is also the enemy of interoperability. So even if
> > there were no ambiguity in any of the specs, there would still be
> > a need to
> > nail down exactly what schema is to be used, what encoding to use, what
> > bindings, where exactly does a client look to discover an interface
> > definition, etc., etc.
> >
> > A rock solid, bug free, completely unambiguous spec for WSDL 1.x is not
> > going to solve the end to end interop problem. And as we move up the food
> > chain to include e.g. transactions, security, conversations, etc. there
> > needs to be a way to knit all the pieces together.
> >
> > cheers,
> >    jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > >  We are here to take WSDL 1.1 and come up with a better version
> > >of the same. From my reading of the charter (I read it again
> > >right now) it is unclear whether we're to produce a patched spec
> > >or a new one, inspired by (and possibly similar to) WSDL 1.1.
> > >
> > >  If the working group was created half a year earlier, I think
> > >WS-I would not be created. Our position would then clearly be to
> > >provide a nice and crisp and polished WSDL 1.1 as WSDL 1.2 (the
> > >patched version).
> > >
> > >  But now since we do have WS-I to take care of the usability of
> > >WSDL 1.1, I think it is more feasible to start from scratch, with
> > >(possibly heavy) inspiration taken from WSDL 1.1.
> > >
> > >  In my experience patched specs read much worse and also contain
> > >lots of space for inconsistencies. Patching SOAP 1.1 was what we
> > >decided to do in XMLP WG and we're still stumbling upon new
> > >issues where there are different meaning of the text possible
> > >(and present in the group).
> > >
> > >  This stumbling and the need to identify all the issues in the
> > >original spec (as opposed to the issues in the original design)
> > >make the work take very long.
> > >
> > >  Now my guess is that if we start from scratch, only borrowing
> > >from WSDL where appropriate, it won't take much longer (or even
> > >that long) and we'll end up with a simpler and nicer spec ready
> > >to be named WSDL 2.0. But the actual version number may be 1.2 to
> > >ease the perceived impact, this won't really matter then. 8-)
> > >
> > >  Now is the time to do it right. 8-)
> > >
> > >  Best regards,
> > >
> > >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > >
> > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
> > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Stumbo, William K wrote:
> > >
> > >  > I didn't detect any clear direction on WS-I coming out of today's
> > > telephone
> > >  > conference.  It seems we've currently tied any working
> > relationship to the
> > >  > definition of our scope.
> > >  >
> > >  > >From the comments made by those involved with WS-I (Arthur?), it
> > > seems to me
> > >  > that we can probably craft some sort of working relationship
> > that benefits
> > >  > both parties.  Whether we need to formalize a relationship,
> > I can't say.
> > >  >
> > >  > I'd like to suggest, as a way of making progress, that the WS-I
> > > members put
> > >  > a proposal for a relationship on the table.  We  can debate
> > the merits of
> > >  > working together until we're blue in the face.  Lets focus
> > the discussion
> > >  > around a specific proposal and see where that goes.
> > >  >
> > >  > What information could the WG expect from WS-I?  How should
> > we expect
> > > to use
> > >  > it?  What can we provide WS-I that would help their mission?
> > >  >
> > >  > Bill Stumbo
> > >  > Xerox Research & Technology
> > >  > Solutions & Services Technology Center
> > >  >
> > >  > wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
> > >  >     Phone:   585.422.0616
> > >  >     Fax:     585.265.8424
> > >  >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Mischkinsky                    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> > Consulting Member Technical Staff   +1(650)506-1975 (voice)
> > Oracle Corporation                  +1(650)506-7225 (fax)
> > 400 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP960
> > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
> >

--
Jeff Mischkinsky                    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff   +1(650)506-1975 (voice)
Oracle Corporation                  +1(650)506-7225 (fax)
400 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP960
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 22:51:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT