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

[Tom Maguire]

I have to agree with Savas w.r.t. Reference Parameters.  The issue at 
hand in the WS-A working
group was the 'identity' semantic of Reference Properties vs URIs.  I do 
not think that reference
parameters will be removed from the spec and reference parameters can be 
used for service-side
dispatch.

Tom

Savas Parastatidis wrote:

>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.
>  
>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>