Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

Wu,

Please describe *in detail* the interoperability problems that will 
result if we allow "arbitrary" and "open ended" XML extensions.

- gp

On 7/7/2009 2:52 PM, Chou, Wu (Wu) wrote:
> Bob,
>  
> Our understanding is: the consensus at the F2F meeting is to replace 
> the mode uri and use Qnames to define the delivery mechanism. It is a 
> refactor or a replacement of the original simple mode uri for the ease 
> of composition. It is not to allow open ended xml to define the 
> delivery mechanism and lump into other extensions under xs:any.
>  
> By allowing that, we are making a simple replacement of mode uri 
> arbitrarily complex.
>  
> Moreover, when a Qname is used to specify a requirement, as it is used 
> here for defining delivery mechanism, it is using the WS-Policy 
> semantics of an assertion. We will show in our proposal that this 
> can be described using non-nested policy assertions, but do 
> not require a full implementation of WS-Policy and still using simple 
> Qname matching, since the list of Qnames used here, as replacement of 
> mode uri, is not nested.
>  
> An arbitrary open ended xml has no uniquely defined semantic meaning, 
> and therefore, it will introduce interoperability problem unless its 
> semantic interpretation is specified as in Policy. 
>  
> We are seriously concerned the consequence to generalize from a list 
> of non-nested Qnames into an arbitrary open ended xml which has no 
> uniquely defined semantics.
>  
> - Wu Chou.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Chou, Wu (Wu)
> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 8:09 PM
> *To:* Bob Freund
> *Cc:* 'public-ws-resource-access@w3.org'
> *Subject:* Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft
>
> Bob,
>
> Glad to see some good progress being made. We would like to add a 
> further work issue to your list:
>
> 4) Using Policy inside the delivery element to describe delivery 
> extensions.
>
> Rationale: If any xml under xs:any is allowed as extension elements to 
> change the default Push delivery, how to uniquely determine the 
> semantics and behavior represented by these extension elements in a 
> light weight and computational efficient way will become an acute issue.
>
> In addition, event source needs a way to advertise the allowed 
> delivery extensions/combinations. And if an event subscription is 
> accepted, the event subscriber should know exactly what delivery 
> mechanism is used by the event source to send event notification.
>
> After some study and comparison, we would like to propose using Policy 
> inside the delivery element to address this issue. We will submit a 
> detailed proposal for the WG to discuss. This proposal will cut across 
> the current TBD topics 1-3 and as a result may need to be handled 
> before the others.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> - Wu Chou.
>
> Wu Chou, IEEE Fellow, Ph.D. | Director |Avaya Labs Research | AVAYA | 
> 233 Mt. Airy Road| Rm. 2D48 | Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 | Voice/Fax: 
> 908-696-5198 / 908-696-5401 | wuchou@avaya.com 
> <blocked::mailto:wuchou@avaya.com>
> From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com 
> <mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Issue-6692%20-%20Interim%20agreement%20draft&In-Reply-To=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E&References=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E>> 
>
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:43:03 -0400
> Message-Id: <FDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697@hitachisoftware.com>
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Issue-6692%20-%20Interim%20agreement%20draft&In-Reply-To=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E&References=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E> 
>
>
> The following is a draft that incorporates the current state of  
> agreement on Issue-6692.
> Note that within the document there are several areas marked "TBD"  
> which represent further aspects that are yet to be thrashed out.
> This version has been reviewed by both Microsoft and IBM and both are  
> agreeable as to it use as the reference for further issue negotiation.
> The summary of further work needed is :
> 1) Fault behavior relating to delivery extensions as the original  
> fault definition related to @mode
> 2) extension negotiation behavior if any since the original @mode  
> fault optional detail element was thought to provide some negotiation  
> mechanism albeit unreliable
> 3) Use of the word "Push" rather than simply the one default method of  
> notification delivery.  Nothing particularly distinguishes "Push" from  
> normal asynchronous delivery and its use in th text is infrequent
>
> I would be interested in discussing this on the next call as well as  
> the opinion of folks as to the potential division of this issue into  
> three additional issues as represented by the points above.
> thanks
> -bob
>
>     * application/msword attachment: wseventing-6692-9-1.doc
>       <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/att-0002/wseventing-6692-9-1.doc>
>
>
>     * application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
>       <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/att-0002/smime.p7s>
>
>