[ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
Stephen Pickles
stephen.pickles at manchester.ac.uk
Mon Jan 24 08:26:28 CST 2005
I am justly rebuked. I wrote in a moment of panic and chose my words
unwisely.
Having digested the comments of those more expert than myself, my
current
understanding is that:
1) OGSA is unaffected.
2) WSRF is affected,
3) but the WSRF TC in OASIS was prepared. Changes to the specs,
if indeed there are any that haven't already been addressed,
should be minor.
4) Some examples probably will need revisiting.
5) Some (not all) implementations of earlier drafts of WSRF are affected
(ours is one). Once again, the changes should be minor, but
might come at the price of breaking compatibility with existing
clients. But I won't lose much sleep over losing backwards
compatibility
with early versions of draft specifications.
6) WSRF interoperability tests will need revisiting, but that's going to
happen next month anyway.
The foundations of the "carefully architectured set of specifications"
seem solid enough to survive this tremor.
Best regards,
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
Ian Foster
Sent: 21 January 2005 20:00
To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); Stephen Pickles; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem);
'OGSA-WG'
Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
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 <http://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 <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 <http://www.globus.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20050124/213661e9/attachment.htm
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list