- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:01:01 -0500
- To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF1011B291.7B333BEC-ON85257553.007B74FA-85257553.007E7694@us.ibm.com>
To follow-up on the conf call yesterday....
Geoff mentioned the Team Comments on WS-Transfer [1] as an implicit
endorsement of the supposed alignment between HTTP and WS-Transfer.
However, I think this is not the case:
- the team comments do not actually say that the "parallel" between HTTP
and WS-Transfer is a good thing it just points out that both have similar
verbs/operations.
- in fact, after this similarity is pointed out the comments go on to say
how misaligned WS-Transfer is with the Web due to the use of EPRs instead
of URIs. It says things like WS-Transfer resources could be
"...unsuitable for referencing and use in other Web technologies".
- add to this Tim's comments [2], as Bob pointed out on the call, that
there is a concern over WS-Transfer's lack of alignment with HTTP around
such things as its use (or lack of use) of HTTP GET. Its worth noting
that Tim reiterates the concern about the misalignment of WS-Transfer with
the Web itself because of its use of EPRs.
- also, no where in the team comments do they make any reference to the
notion that because the Body is 'unwrapped' its more aligned with HTTP. It
doesn't even touch on this subject at all. And, as I pointed out on the
call, this would be a mistake for them to even head down this path because
there are lots of cases where the HTTP Body is wrapped (like
mime-encoding) and those are clearly not misaligned with HTTP.
I do agree with Geoff that the alignment of WS-Transfer with HTTP, and the
Web itself, should be more closely examined - especially given the
Team/Tag/Tim comments - but this is a separate issue that has nothing to
do with whether the Transfer operations include a wrapper in the Body or
not.
[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
02/03/2009 12:35 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: issue 6398: updated proposal
Hi Doug,
Having re-read our previous email a couple of times, it is still kind of
unclear exactly what you think we are in agreement on here. J While it is
hopeful we will find common ground at some point, we are not there yet.
Regarding Transfer Create Operation ?
T.Create and RT.Create currently have different cardinalities and one of
them therefore must change in order for them to remain ?in sync?.
The current version of T.Create() states that the first child element MUST
NOT be omitted. But the draft proposal allows senders to emit empty Create
requests. This means, current Transfer Resource Factories cannot process
the proposed Create request messages without changing the underlying
processing logic.
Cheers,
Geoff
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:27 PM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal
Geoff,
thanks for the comments. I'm glad that we're in agreement that there is
no functional difference between what the current version of Transfer and
my proposal because I tried to ensure that it was just a syntax change. As
to the change of cardinality of Create, I was very clear as to why I
changed it - please reread my proposal. Also, it does not break backwards
compatibility - aside from the addition of a wrapper, existing impls will
still be sending valid WS-T messages.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
02/02/2009 07:32 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: issue 6398: updated proposal
Doug,
We have been looking more closely at the wrapper issue (Issue 6398) and
your current proposal and there are a number of concerns that we have.
Summary
We believe that the proposed changes will affect the current alignment of
Transfer with HTTP, and that it breaks the current implementation of
Transfer by changing the cardinality of message formats. More specific
details can be seen below:
1) Wrappers and the Alignment of Transfer with HTTP
We believe that the proposed wrapper changes disrupt the current alignment
between Transfer and HTTP. Since the TAG articulated in Nov, 2008 that
they were interested in a closer alignment between Transfer and HTTP, it
is unclear to us if this is the right direction for the WG to be heading.
There are a set of principles that guide us as we move through this issue:
a) Transfer continues to have alignment with HTTP as much as possible.
b) Transfer is built on WS-A and honors the WS-A action based dispatch
model.
c) Transfer should be aligned with Basic Profile as much as possible.
With regards to goal a) above, the HTTP message body carries the content
(or message body) and not the verb (action). In the same way, the
Transfer SOAP body carries the content and not the action. We believe
using specific wrapper element names, such as <get> and <getresponse>,
implies there is semantic meaning in those names, which affects the
separation described above and thus disrupts the existing alignment
between Transfer and HTTP. Any semantic meaning also goes against goal
b).
Also with regards to goal a), the WG has not yet received any technical
comments from the TAG nor has the TAG articulated its wishes clearly to
us. Shouldn't we engage the TAG ASAP?
2) Wrappers, Cardinality and the Create verb
While you expressed a desire to treat cardinality as separate from the
wrapper issue, your proposal does in fact change the cardinality of the
Transfer messages, Delete and Create. While changing the cardinality of
T.delete does not break backwards compatibility, changing the cardinality
of T.create certainly does. It is unclear to us why your proposal has
chosen to break backwards compatibility with T implementations. It is our
understanding that there are many current interoperable implementations of
the T spec, so would not it be more prudent to align more closely with the
current version of T?
--Geoff
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:34 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal
Hey Geoff,
thanks for the heads up on the cardinality - I'll double check those -
but what's correct depends on whether you're looking at the schema or the
text of the spec. For example, GetResponse, per the pseudo schema should
be as you noted (+), but per the schema it should be a singleton. Either
way - this is our chance to make sure things are aligned. As for the MEX
change, despite some possible ribbing from Jeff :-), I like consistency -
so if you open an issue I wouldn't object.
All,
below is a modified version of the proposal, showing the pseudo schema
changes to T and RT (some of the cardinalities will vary slightly from
previous proposal and from the specs in an effort to ensure things are
consistent and allow for RT to do its job) - I tried to make a note of
each one as I detected it (hopefully the following shows up ok for
everyone - if not let me know and I'll put it into a separate file):
T-GetRequest: RT-GetRequest:
<wst:Get ... > <wst:Get Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any * <wsrt:Expression ...> xs:any
</wsrt:Expression> *
</wst:Get> </wst:Get>
Note: to allow for more than one Expression, I had to change the 'xs:any
?' to a "xs:any *" on the xs:any of the T.Get(), and for full
extensibility (an attribute on Get could make the need for children
unnecessary).
T-GetResponse: RT-GetResponse:
<wst:GetResponse ...> <wst:GetResponse ...>
xs:any + <wsrt:Result...>xs:any</wsrt:Result> +
</wst:GetResponse> </wst:GetResponce>
Note: We should consider changing the "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" since the
resource representation could technically be empty and we should allow for
that (<wsrt:Result>+ too), and for full extensibility (an attribute on
GetResponse could make the need for children unnecessary).
T-PutRequest: RT-PutRequest:
<wst:Put ...> <wst:Put Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any + <wsrt:Fragment ...> +
</wst:Put> <wst:Put>
Note: We should change "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" to allow for an empty
represenation to be 'put', and for full extensibility (an attribute on Put
could make the need for children unnecessary).
T-PutResponse: RT-PutResponse:
<wst:PutResponse ...> <wst:PutResponse ...>
xs:any ? xs:any ?
</wst:PutResponse> </wst:PutResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.
T-DeleteRequest: RT-DeleteRequest:
<wst:Delete ...> <wst:Delete ...>
xs:any * xs:any *
</wst:Delete> </wst:Delete>
Note: I added the "xs:any *" extensibility point in here.
T-DeleteResponse: RT-DeleteResponse:
<wst:DeleteResponse ...> <wst:DeleteResponse>
xs:any ? xs:any ?
</wst:DeleteResponse> </wst:DeleteResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.
T-CreateRequest: RT-CreateRequest:
<wst:Create ...> <wst:Create Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any * <wsmex:Metadata ...> ?
<wsrt:Fragment ...> *
</wst:CreateRequest> </wst:CreateRequest>
Note: I changed the "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" for three reasons: 1) it
seems like it should be possible to allow the entire resource to have
default values, 2) per the RT spec the mex and fragment elements are
optional, 3) to allow for full extensibility (an attribute on the Create
could make up for the absence of child elements).
T-CreateResponse: RT-CreateResponse:
<wst:CreateResponse ...> <wst:CreateResponse ...>
<wst:ResourceCreated> <wst:ResourceCreated>
xs:any ? xs:any ?
</wst:CreateResponse> </wst:CreateResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.
We should discuss the "xs:any ?" -> "xs:any *" notes I made - if there
isn't any objection we can include it as part of this.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
01/16/2009 12:09 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: issue 6398: updated proposal
Doug,
A couple of things:
1) I believe the "xs:any" defined in GetResponse, PutRequest,
CreateRequest should actually be "xs:any +" defining one or more.
2) I am wondering if, for the sake of consistency and extensibility,
we should also be looking at the GetMetadata Request and Response messages
in MEX and adding a similar outer wrappers and extensibility concepts?
Thoughts?
--Geoff
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: issue 6398: updated proposal
per my AI from yesterday, the updated pseudo schema for the wrapped
WS-Transfer operations would be:
GetRequest:
<wst:Get ... >
xs:any ?
</wst:Get>
GetResponse:
<wst:GetResponse ...>
xs:any
</wst:GetResponse>
PutRequest:
<wst:PutRequest ...>
xs:any
</wst:PutRequest>
PutResponse:
<wst:PutResponse ...>
xs:any ?
</wst:PutResponse>
DeleteResponse:
<wst:DeleteResponse ...>
xs:any ?
</wst:DeleteResponse>
CreateRequest:
<wst:CreateRequest ...>
xs:any
</wst:CreateRequest>
CreateResponse:
<wst:CreateResponse ...>
<wxf:ResourceCreated>endpoint-reference</wxf:ResourceCreated>
xs:any ?
</wst:CreateResponse>
In looking at how this impacts RT... it shouldn't. RT overrides T's Body
(in some cases already using a wrapper similar to the above) so that can
continue as is. The only thing missing from the previous proposal was the
extensibilty points on the wrapper elements so that attributes could be
added - but that was a typo :-) . Existing RT can continue to override
the the above messages with a well defined element - this, along with the
RT header allows the receiver to know this isn't a normal/vanilla Transfer
operation.
There is no impact on MEX. I couldn't find any reference to the transfer
operations that needed to be changed - no samples using it either.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:01:47 UTC