New public comment on MUWS Part 2

All,

 

This weekend I discovered a situation in MUWS Part 2 for
which I just entered a public comment (at Vaughn’s request).  This
email will include both the public comment and some discussion regarding its
resolutions:  Please note, I raise an entirely new (but related) issue in
my comments to the group.

 

The comment is:  ********

 

In section 4.1.2.2 of MUWS Part 2, the sequence for the
Participant child includes (starting with line 1175):

 

    <muws1:ManageabilityEndpointReference/> *

    <muws1:ResourceId/> ?

  . . .

    {any} *

 

The explanation of the any makes reference to the MOWS
defined EndpointReference element for use when the participant is a Web Service
(rather than a WSDM resource).  The example that accompanies this pseudo
schema in fact uses the mows:EndpointReference element (beginning line
1254).  

 

However, in section 4.2.2, the sequence of Participant is
presented as (starting with line 1376) 

 

  <muws1:ManageabilityEndpointReference/> *

  <muws1:EndpointReference/> *

  <muws1:ResourceId/> ?

. . .

 

Now we have a muws1:EndpointReference inserted into the
sequence.  The schema of MUWS Part 2, RelationshipParticipantType (beginning
line 1760) supports this sequence rather than the one in 4.1.2.2.  Unfortunately,
there is no MUWS1 definition of EndpointReference.  

 

*********

Comments to the group:

 

 
I believe this was a problem with WSDM 1.0, since
     WSDM 1.0 didn’t define a muws1:EndpointReference either.

 
The most efficient solution appears to be to
     eliminate the muws1:EndpointReference from both the pseudo schema in 4.2.2
     and from the schema.  Eliminating it from the schema is a potential
     breaking change, but since there no such thing as a muws1:EndpointReference,
     we wouldn’t be breaking anything that is not already broken J.

 
A deeper issue might be why are we using the mows:EnpointReference
     in the 4.1.2.2 rather than the wsa:EndpointReference.  The MOWS EndpointReference
     has special semantics within the MOWS Identification capability as the Web
     Service being managed through MOWS.  I don’t think there is
     that kind of implication in this case—that the participant is a Web
     service that is being managed by MOWS.  But the change here would be
     more substantial, since it would require reformulating the explanation of
     the “any”.  I did NOT include this issue as part of the
     public comment.  That should be a separate public comment. 
     Since this is an “any”, it kind-of covers the wsa:EndpointReference
     without the text explicitly saying it does.

 

ANY THOUGHTS ON POINT #3??  Is this worth pursuing at the last
minute?  (Decision required by the 18th.)

 

 

Kirk Wilson

CA Inc.

Architect, Development

Office of the CTO

Tele: + 1 603 823-7146

Fax:   + 1 603 823-7148

<mailto:>