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

[Savas Parastatidis]

Dear all,

I agree with some of what Steve said bellow :-))

The change does make a difference in implementations because if the
information that was meant to be included in the Reference Properties is
now encoded in the Address property of an EPR (the URI) it cannot be
echoed back as SOAP headers. This was part of the semantics of Reference
Properties.

For a resource-oriented specification like WSRF, however, using URIs to
identify resources is a good solution. On this I agree with Steve. The
semantics of WSRF do not have to change even if it wasn't abstracted
away from WS-Addressing. What is lost is the ability to echo back as
SOAP headers any resource-specific information that may be required by a
SOAP intermediary to identify the targeted resource. If having SOAP
headers is a requirement, though, I don't see why Reference Parameters
couldn't be used. 

So, while Reference Properties have been removed, Reference Parameters
are still there and while I would personally like to see them go too, I
don't think it'll happen. The semantics of Reference Parameters are
slightly different but I don't see why WSRF couldn't use them, if it
needed to, instead of Reference Properties to carry resource-specific
information.

Best regards,
--
Savas Parastatidis
http://savas.parastatidis.name
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Steve Tuecke
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:55 PM
> To: Ian Foster
> Cc: 'Stephen Pickles'; 'OGSA-WG'; Steve Tuecke; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> 
> As far as I can tell, this decision has basically no effect on WSRF.
> The argument being made by some in the WS-A working group is that it
is
> equivalent and more true to the Web to carry a resource identifier as
> part of the EPR address, rather than in a separate ResourceProperties
> field -- that is, the resource reference should all be in the URI,
> rather than split between a URI and separate resource properties.
> Implementation-wise it certainly makes very little difference.  And
the
> WSRF working group had already abstracted the WS-Resource reference
and
> access pattern, so that it is not tightly coupled to WS-A and
reference
> properties anyway, so WSRF specification-wise it makes no difference.
> 
> -Steve
> 
> On Jan 21, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Ian Foster wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> >