[Fwd: Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft]

Wu,

Who said the QName is treated as an assertion, and what difference would 
that make in any case? An Event Source either understands/recognizes the 
QName of the extension (or assertion if you prefer) *or it does not!* 
It's a binary distinction. This is software we are talking about; there 
are no "close misses". An Event Source that understands/recognizes 
"sdev:PushWithAcks" but doesn't recognize "fsv:AckNotifications" doesn't 
know or care that, to a human, they seem like they might mean the same 
thing. I have the hardest time understanding your model because it seems 
the me that you imagine that there is a human being in the loop looking 
at every Subscribe request and attempting to interpret the extension 
elements. It would be really helpful if you could describe, at a high 
level, the exact sequence of steps you think should happen during 
extension negotiation.

- gp

On 7/15/2009 11:20 AM, Chou, Wu (Wu) wrote:
> 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>*
>> 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-%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>_/ 
>> <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-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>
>>
>>