RE: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

If a Qname is treated as an assertion (assertion is defined as a Qname),
then the Qname composition semantics is equivalent to policy expression
semantics. Check WS-Policy or its tutorial Primer for more information.
 
Have fun,
 
- Wu Chou

________________________________

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:05 PM
To: Chou, Wu (Wu)
Cc: Doug Davis; Bob Freund; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft


Wu,

I sorry, but I don't have the faintest idea what you mean by "QName
composition semantics". Please define your terms.

- gp

On 7/14/2009 12:18 PM, Chou, Wu (Wu) wrote: 

	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> <mailto: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>
<mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>  	
cc
"Bob Freund" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
<mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> ,
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<mailto: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>