Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal

Hi Ashok

I understand your points, but I think that they are wider than the issue 
(6463) under discussion.  Your concerns relate to aspects of the spec that 
I have not proposed changing under this issue.  How about discussing them 
under a separate issue so we do not overload this one?

Best regards
Katy



From:
ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
To:
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Cc:
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Date:
14/12/2009 18:25
Subject:
Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal



Hi Asir, Hi Katy:
I looked at the example you sent out and I have 2 questions.

1. Look at the snippet below

<mex:MetadataSection

(53)            Dialect='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'

(54) Identifier='http://services.example.org/stockquote/schemas'>

(55)          <mex:MetadataReference>

(56)            <wsa:Address>

(57)              http://services.example.org/stockquote/schemas

(58)            </wsa:Address>

(59)          </mex:MetadataReference>

(60)        </mex:MetadataSection>


Why is the Schema address duplicated?

2.  Do we really need the mex:Metadata wrapper?  Why can't we put the 
mex:MetadataSection (s) directly within
wsa:Metadata ?

All the best, Ashok


Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> Thanks Katy.
>
> 
>
> Here are some initial comments on the proposal.
>
> 
>
> >In Example 8-1, a [WS-Addressing] endpoint reference to a service 
> endpoint contains the metadata to allow requesters to issue a 
> GetMetadata request against it
>
> 
>
> We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide 
> sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue a 
> GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how can 
> a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the underlying 
> protocol transport?
>
> 
>
> We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide an 
> example that provides sufficient binding information, including 
> policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
>
> 
>
> >As an alternative to using MetadataLocation (lines 08-17), the 
> WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the appropriately attached policy 
> could have been embedded directly into the MetadataSection.  The 
> embedded WSDL approach was used in example Example 7.1 to pass 
> metadata in the EPR.
>
> 
>
> The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1 
> describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two 
> different use cases. It might help to show case an example that 
> illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to 
> attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap 
> binding.
>
> 
>
> We will be more than happy to work with Katy to prepare a revised 
> proposal.
>
> 
>
> Regards,
>
> 
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> 
>
> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Katy 
Warr
> *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 10:42 AM
> *To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Asir Vedamuthu
> *Subject:* Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked 
> up proposal
>
> 
>
>
> Following my action to create a markup version of the proposal for bug 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463, please find the 
> marked up document attached.  The changes are all in Section 8 (and an 
> example is moved from section 7).
>
>
>
> Asir,
>
> The difference between your example and my previous one is primarily 
> that you have embedded the WSDL metadata within the EPR, rather than 
> using Policy Attachments. 
>
> Whilst both approaches work, I believe that we should have a wider 
> variation of examples within the specification in order to illustrate 
> different features and usage scenarios. From my experience, a wide 
> range of examples is of great benefit to developers.  Embedded WSDL is 
> already illustrated in example 7-1. 
>
> In this particular example (8.1), policy attachments also work very 
> well as it provides a mechanism to associate policy with a single 
> operation without having the whole WSDL included within the EPR.
>
> As a suggested compromise, I've included the policy attachments 
> example (8-1) in the proposal attached to this mail, but added a 
> detailed explanation below it in order to aid understanding.  I have 
> also added some text to say that the WSDL could be embedded, as an 
> alternative approach.
>
> Regards
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>









Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU