Re: RA and the TAG

Geoff wrote:
If WS-Transfer?s use of EPRs on Web Services Resources instead of URIs are 
thought to be damaging the Web then WS-ResourceTransfer?s use of EPRs on 
Secondary Resources would certainly amplify those damages.

While making such inflammatory statements I would think it would be 
incumbent upon you to back this up with at least some facts.  RT leverages 
T's use of Addressing and doesn't extend or change it - how it "amplifies" 
any problem that Transfer introduces is beyond me.  We get it Geoff - you 
don't like RT - but this is a stretch.   A much more accurate statement 
would be to extend this to ALL WS specs, or to WS-Addressing itself, the 
use of ref-params is a problem, period.

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
03/09/2009 12:44 PM

To
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RA and the TAG






Ashok and I have been discussing some of the historical comments and 
opinions expressed by the TAG concerning Transfer.  Some of the more 
interesting comments are included below.
There seem to be at least 2 issues:
- Web Services are identified by EPRs and not by URI's. 
- A RESTful interface is desirable i.e. what does a GET on the URI in the 
EPR return?.
 
It would be good to discuss this during the F2F.  Ashok could talk about 
the current trends on 
fetching metadata and we can discuss whether this is a direction the WG 
wants to pursue.
 
In the end it would be best to draw out any specific TAG issues sooner 
rather than later.
Cheers,
Geoff
 
 
Details:
 
1)
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-tagmem-irc
Reconstructing the meeting notes a bit, we get:
"WS-Transfer resources are potentially identified by more than just a URI, 
making them unsuitable for referencing and use in other Web technologies, 
e.g. in the context of traditional Web links or RDF assertions. Also, 
there is a risk, depending how WS-Transfer operates over HTTP, that 
WS-Transfer might not benefit from existing deployed infrastructure such 
as proxies."
 
These comments seem to open up a number of potential issues that the TAG 
may raise associated with Transfer (and perhaps Eventing?). 
 
2)
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/12-tagmem-minutes.html
Quotes such as:
?I would be much happier if we can do a better job of getting the 
community that's using EPRs, etc. to take to heart the value of 
integration with the Web.?
 
?PlH: But WS is not entirely against REST, it's just that the toolkits 
don't typically exploit a RESTful foundation
DO: But adding WS Transfer in a way would enable more RESTful WS -- after 
all, REST is not dependent on http, you can have a RESTful use of SOAP 
over UDP?
 
?The fact that the WS Transfer example breaks the Addressing agreement can 
be fixed?
 
It is generally a long discussion about Web Services and the Web 
Architecture.  Again a number of issues raised here, mainly about using 
EPRs.  One specific issue raised was about changing the examples in 
Transfer (and other specs?) to NOT use resource parameters.
 
3)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
Several very good questions are raised here:
* Does WS-Transfer's use of Web Services Addressing End Point References 
(EPRs) instead of URIs damage the Web?
* When WS-Transfer is carried over HTTP, can it make proper use of HTTP as 
an application level-protocol? Should a default HTTP binding be specified 
to promote proper use of the WS-Transfer/SOAP/HTTP combination? 
 
These issues seem to be similar to those raised in 1) above.
 
4)
Thus far, TAG has only focused on Transfer. RT was published in Fall 2006. 
If WS-Transfer?s use of EPRs on Web Services Resources instead of URIs are 
thought to be damaging the Web then WS-ResourceTransfer?s use of EPRs on 
Secondary Resources would certainly amplify those damages. Perhaps the WG 
should specifically ask the TAG to review WS-ResourceTranfer and provide 
their input as well?