Re: RA and the TAG

On Mar 09, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Doug Davis wrote:

> 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.
which the TAG (and the W3C) punted on when they approved WS-Addressing  
- that horse is long out of the barn!
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |
> Geoff Bullen <>
> Sent by:
> 03/09/2009 12:44 PM
> To
> "" <>
> 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)
> 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)
> 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)
> 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?

Jeff Mischkinsky			  
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 17:46:51 UTC