- From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:39:24 +0000
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB028FBD1.0E899D52-ON8025768D.0034A688-8025768D.00350CB1@uk.ibm.com>
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
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2009 09:40:08 UTC