RE: Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341

Thanks, again, Ginny.  I will try to have another draft by Thursday's
call.

 

What I meant by the "hard-coded" statement is that if you just have an
EPR, then all the processing connected with constructing an appropriate
SOAP message to send to the intended service must be hard coded.   I
think of it in terms of  a scale-at the end one is a simple EPR scheme
containing just an EPR that provides an address to a service, at the
other end is an EPR scheme containing a specific scheme like the WSRF
EPR scheme I describe in the Note.  At the simple end, everything for
constructing the SOAP message must be hard-coded in the SML model
consumer.  It's got to "know" what protocol is to be used, what
wsa:Action is to be used, how to construct a message Body (if that is
appropriate), etc..  (All that would have to be defined explicitly in
the resolution process in the EPR scheme definition.  For advanced
protocols this is in fact impractical because there are too many
variables-different wsa:Actions, different possible message bodies,
etc.)  At the other end of the scale, most of this information is
provided by the scheme along with the EPR and the only thing that has to
be hard-coded is how to put the information provided by the EPR scheme
into a SOAP message-a mechanical process for a given protocol.  Some
hard-coding is involved throughout the scale, but to different degrees
depending on how the EPR scheme itself is defined.

 

I hope this explanation helps.  I will review the text to see if the
text can be made clearer.

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.

Research Staff Member, CA Labs

603 823-7146 (preferred)

Cell:  603 991-8873

 

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.

________________________________

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:32 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341

 

Kirk,

 

Looks good. I have a few small edits in the attached document. (I
accepted all previous changes so my edits would stand out.)

 

Also, regarding the "hard-coded" statement - are you saying that
hard-coding this information is the ONLY way a consumer will get this
information?

 

--

ginny

 

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Wilson, Kirk D
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:41 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341

 

This draft responds to the extensive comments from Ginny.  I have
refocused the section that "defines" the EPR scheme so that it presents
a "framework" for defining specific EPR schemes.  I have also renumbered
the sections.  (The attached draft tracks changes.)

 

I will update the issue in bugzilla with this and previous
correspondence regarding this note.

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.

CA, Inc.

Research Staff Member, CA Labs

Intellectual Property and Standards

Council of Technical Excellence

Tele: 603 823 7146  (preferred)

Cell: 603 991 8873

Fax: 603 823 7148

kirk.wilson@ca.com

 

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.