Re: Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP

The EPR minter indeed could do that.
But that means the values of the abstract properties depend on the 
binding. Essentially, the minter of the EPR has to know the binding(s) 
that the EPR will be used with and work backwards to the EPR.

As I stated this does not mean that the properties are not abstract 
(depends on the interpretation of what 'abstract' means).

-Anish
--

Martin Gudgin wrote:
> Why wouldn't the EPR minter just put both sets of attributes on the Ref
> Params? e.g.
> 
> <m:MyRefParam soap11:actor='foobar' soap12:role='foobar' />
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>>Anish Karmarkar
>>Sent: 07 February 2005 08:25
>>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP
>>
>>
>>I took an action to identify which parts of the specification give an 
>>impression that EPRs are more abstract than they actually are. This 
>>email fulfills that action.
>>
>>This action was assigned during the discussion of issue i018 
>>at the MEL 
>>f2f. This issue deals with the fact that the SOAP binding for 
>>EPR maps 
>>Reference Parameters directly as first class SOAP header 
>>blocks (with no 
>>change). This implies that SOAP 1.1/1.2 attributes such as 
>>soap11:mustUnderstand, soap12:mustUnderstand, soap11:actor, 
>>soap12:role, 
>>soap12:relay must be specified in the value of Reference 
>>Parameters in 
>>an EPR instance. I.e. the abstract property [Reference 
>>Parameter] value 
>>can be SOAP 1.1/1.2 specific. This means that when specifying a value 
>>for a reference parameter the minter of the EPR has to know 
>>not only the 
>>fact that the EPR is being used with SOAP but the version of 
>>SOAP as well.
>>
>>Going through the spec the only place that it talks about 
>>abstractness 
>>is section 2.1 [1].
>>
>>But this abstractness may only have to do with the fact that it is 
>>independent of serialization. I (and I suspect Glen as well) had 
>>interpreted WS-Addressing abstract properties to mean that 
>>all instance 
>>of an EPR could be bound to either SOAP 1.1 (using SOAP 1.1 
>>binding) or 
>>SOAP 1.2 (using SOAP 1.2 binding) or some other protocol. If this 
>>interpretation is correct then the SOAP binding violates such an 
>>abstractness since it would inject soap version specific 
>>MU/role/actor/relay attributes in the value of the Ref 
>>Params. If this 
>>interpretation is incorrect, i.e., the abstractness has to do 
>>with the 
>>fact that it is independent of serialization then it seems like there 
>>isn't an issue here.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>-Anish
>>--
>>
>>[1] 
>>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr
>>-core.html
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 20:08:03 UTC