RE: Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)

Jeef,

According to the information on the WS-I web site, the basic profile
addresses SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, and UDDI 1.0. SOAP 1.1 is not the same as
XMLP. It seems to me that WS-I is focusing on making interoperability happen
based on today's technology (a very good thing!!!). Right now we're in the
process of defining tomorrow's technology. The two things are orthogonal.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:07 PM
> To: Jacek Kopecky; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)
>
>
> At 11:10 AM 3/14/02, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >  Hi all,
> >  let me try to pick the situation apart:
> >
> >  WS-I is here to provide best practices for WSDL and some
> >profiles limiting WSDL. All for interoperability. All for WSDL
> >1.1.
>
> Just to clarify a bit. The first (Basic) Profile that WS-I is setting out
> to define encompasses more than just WSDL. It's XMLP (SOAP) +
> WSDL + Schema
> + UDDI. Basically everything one needs for end-to-end interop at a very
> basic level--What can developers and clients count on being
> there. How does one
> use those specs. SOAP and WSDL are designed to support some very nice
> extensibility frameworks; and that is one of the strengths of the
> technology. But that is also the enemy of interoperability. So even if
> there were no ambiguity in any of the specs, there would still be
> a need to
> nail down exactly what schema is to be used, what encoding to use, what
> bindings, where exactly does a client look to discover an interface
> definition, etc., etc.
>
> A rock solid, bug free, completely unambiguous spec for WSDL 1.x is not
> going to solve the end to end interop problem. And as we move up the food
> chain to include e.g. transactions, security, conversations, etc. there
> needs to be a way to knit all the pieces together.
>
> cheers,
>    jeff
>
>
>
> >  We are here to take WSDL 1.1 and come up with a better version
> >of the same. From my reading of the charter (I read it again
> >right now) it is unclear whether we're to produce a patched spec
> >or a new one, inspired by (and possibly similar to) WSDL 1.1.
> >
> >  If the working group was created half a year earlier, I think
> >WS-I would not be created. Our position would then clearly be to
> >provide a nice and crisp and polished WSDL 1.1 as WSDL 1.2 (the
> >patched version).
> >
> >  But now since we do have WS-I to take care of the usability of
> >WSDL 1.1, I think it is more feasible to start from scratch, with
> >(possibly heavy) inspiration taken from WSDL 1.1.
> >
> >  In my experience patched specs read much worse and also contain
> >lots of space for inconsistencies. Patching SOAP 1.1 was what we
> >decided to do in XMLP WG and we're still stumbling upon new
> >issues where there are different meaning of the text possible
> >(and present in the group).
> >
> >  This stumbling and the need to identify all the issues in the
> >original spec (as opposed to the issues in the original design)
> >make the work take very long.
> >
> >  Now my guess is that if we start from scratch, only borrowing
> >from WSDL where appropriate, it won't take much longer (or even
> >that long) and we'll end up with a simpler and nicer spec ready
> >to be named WSDL 2.0. But the actual version number may be 1.2 to
> >ease the perceived impact, this won't really matter then. 8-)
> >
> >  Now is the time to do it right. 8-)
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> >
> >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
> >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Stumbo, William K wrote:
> >
> >  > I didn't detect any clear direction on WS-I coming out of today's
> > telephone
> >  > conference.  It seems we've currently tied any working
> relationship to the
> >  > definition of our scope.
> >  >
> >  > >From the comments made by those involved with WS-I (Arthur?), it
> > seems to me
> >  > that we can probably craft some sort of working relationship
> that benefits
> >  > both parties.  Whether we need to formalize a relationship,
> I can't say.
> >  >
> >  > I'd like to suggest, as a way of making progress, that the WS-I
> > members put
> >  > a proposal for a relationship on the table.  We  can debate
> the merits of
> >  > working together until we're blue in the face.  Lets focus
> the discussion
> >  > around a specific proposal and see where that goes.
> >  >
> >  > What information could the WG expect from WS-I?  How should
> we expect
> > to use
> >  > it?  What can we provide WS-I that would help their mission?
> >  >
> >  > Bill Stumbo
> >  > Xerox Research & Technology
> >  > Solutions & Services Technology Center
> >  >
> >  > wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
> >  >     Phone:   585.422.0616
> >  >     Fax:     585.265.8424
> >  >
>
> --
> Jeff Mischkinsky                    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Consulting Member Technical Staff   +1(650)506-1975 (voice)
> Oracle Corporation                  +1(650)506-7225 (fax)
> 400 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP960
> Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
>

Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 07:41:06 UTC