RE: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

Doug,
 
This is the issue. If just from Qnames,
"Delivery/@Mode=".../PushWithAck" , Delivery/@Mode=".../MyPushWithAck" ,
Delivery/@Mode=".../WusPushWithAck" " are not the same. But  in terms of
the Qname composition semantics, they can be interpreted as the same or
not the same depending on the semantic model being used.

To determine the semantics of Qname composition, just knowing the
definition of each individual Qname is not enough. Otherwise WS-Policy
should not specify those rules for composition. 
 
It is not clear if example 1-5 are semantically equivalent just by
looking at their Qnames, even each Qname is well defined. Roughly
speaking, this is all WS-Policy about, i.e. represent literal defined
requirements by well defined individual Qnames and define intersection
rules to determine the semantics of composed Qnames.
 
Thanks,
 
- Wu Chou

________________________________

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:31 PM
To: Chou, Wu (Wu)
Cc: Bob Freund; Gilbert Pilz; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft



Wu, 
  In the original WS-E are these the same? 
Delivery/@Mode=".../PushWithAck" 
Delivery/@Mode=".../MyPushWithAck" 
Delivery/@Mode=".../WusPushWithAck" 
You need to understand the URI to know.   

In your example: 

1. <Push/><Ack/> 
2. <Push><Ack/></Push> 
3. <Ack/><Push/> 
4. <Ack><Push/></Ack> 
5. <myDelivery><Push><Ack/></Push></myDelivery> 
is no different. You need to know/understand the QNames to know if
they're the same.   

If the definition of the URIs or QNames above are unclear then the
problem lies with the loose definition of those values - not in the
xs:any they're using. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 



"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 

07/13/2009 05:55 PM 

To
"Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
cc
"Bob Freund" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>,
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

	




Gil, 
  
Without a common semantic framework, e.g. WS-Policy, it is unclear how
the event source should determine the shape and semantics of a QName.
This may lead to a situation where different event sources designate the
composition of the same set of QNames with different syntax and
semantics, thereby creating interoperability issues for the subscribers.

  
For example, for Push delivery with ack, it can be represented as: 
1. <Push/><Ack/> 
2. <Push><Ack/></Push> 
3. <Ack/><Push/> 
4. <Ack><Push/></Ack> 
5. <myDelivery><Push><Ack/></Push></myDelivery> 
6.  ... 
  
It is not clear if they are different or equivalent if without a common
semantic framework for their processing. This is not an issue in the
original WS-Eventing, because there is only one way to semantically
parse Delivery/@Mode <mailto:Delivery/@Mode>  . 
  
- Wu Chou. 


________________________________

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:00 PM
To: Chou, Wu (Wu)
Cc: Bob Freund; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: 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
<mailto: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-%20
Interim%20agreement%20draft&In-Reply-To=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2C
AC4D83697%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>
<mailto: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-B
2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E&References=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9
C-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/a
tt-0002/wseventing-6692-9-1.doc>  
*	application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/a
tt-0002/smime.p7s>