[ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution

[Ian Foster]

I think the technical term is "carefully architected set of specifications" 
not "house of cards" (-:

Regards -- Ian.


At 05:10 PM 1/21/2005 +0000, Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote:
>Well, it probably doesn't, because WSRF is now decoupled from WS-Addressing
>through the definition of the "abstract" resource Access Pattern, which
>defines different embodiments for different ways of accessing state.
>
>
>Abdeslem
>///////////////
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Pickles [mailto:stephen.pickles at manchester.ac.uk]
>Sent: 21 January 2005 17:05
>To: 'Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)'; 'OGSA-WG'
>Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
>
>Doesn't this make the whole house of cards (WSRF and OGSA)
>come tumbling down?
>
>Please tell me I'm wrong!
>
>Stephen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
> > Sent: 21 January 2005 09:47
> > To: 'OGSA-WG'
> > Subject: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> >
> >
> > Just in case you have not seen this, It appears RefProps will
> > be removed
> > from EPR's. Something we should discuss.
> >
> > Abdeslem
> > /////////////////
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request at w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request at w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> > Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33
> > To: Mark Little; Mark Baker
> > Cc: public-ws-addressing at w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark and Mark,
> > It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 .
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-addressing-request at w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request at w3.org] On Behalf Of
> > Mark Little
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM
> > > To: Mark Baker
> > > Cc: public-ws-addressing at w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as
> > > you're aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a
> > > moment, I don't see them vanishing in this release of the
> > > specification. That doesn't prevent us from debating their
> > > utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better
> > > to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain
> > > the timeline that was proposed by the submitters and agreed
> > > upon by the members of the group. Who knows, there may be a
> > > change in a subsequent release?
> > >
> > > Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could
> > > change the context of what was originally intended. I didn't
> > > mention the word "identification" at all in the proposed
> > text I said.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Mark Little,
> > > Chief Architect,
> > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> > >
> > > www.arjuna.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mark Baker" <distobj at acm.org>
> > > To: "Mark Little" <mark.little at arjuna.com>
> > > Cc: <public-ws-addressing at w3.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mark,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote:
> > > > > I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to
> > > be that they
> > > will
> > > > > stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and
> > > > > specifications
> > > out
> > > > > there that now rely on them).
> > > >
> > > > This is a new spec we're working on, no?  Those
> > implementations can
> > > > continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they
> > currently
> > > > depend upon.  Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT.
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that the term "identifier" can be
> > > > > contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just
> > > > > calling it/them "additional information that referencing
> > > > > specifications [aka
> > > using
> > > > > specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately
> > > > > address
> > > the
> > > > > endpoint service"?
> > > >
> > > > >From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing
> > the part of
> > > > >the
> > > > spec that talks about using RefProps for identification.
> > > Adding "in
> > > > order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to
> > undoing that
> > > > change.  The point of the change, as I see it, is to get
> > > identifying
> > > > information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I
> > > consider that an
> > > > enormous improvement over the WS-A submission.
> > > >
> > > > > That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only
> > > > > *why*.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, identification is a "what".
> > > >
> > > > Mark.
> > > > --
> > > > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
> > > http://www.markbaker.ca
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster                    www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster
Math & Computer Science Div.  Dept of Computer Science
Argonne National Laboratory   The University of Chicago
Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A.     Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
Tel: 630 252 4619             Fax: 630 252 1997
         Globus Alliance, www.globus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20050121/cd906020/attachment.htm