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

[Tom Maguire]

Yes you are incorrect.

Stephen Pickles wrote:

>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
>>>      
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>