Modification Of UWS 1 to 1.1

[Paul Harrison]

Dear Pierre et. al.

First some general comments;

I think that in several areas you are making proposals that would make UWS 1.0 services invalid - this cannot be done, from both a point of IVOA procedure (a point version must be backwards compatible) and from a strategic perspective (we do not want to make anything obsolete at this stage). In addition you seem to want to be narrowing the scope of UWS by suggesting removing features that you do not want to use but that others (e.g. see email from Petr) find useful.

You have also presented the document as a rewrite of the original document, rather than as a list of suggested changes - this makes it rather difficult to see what changes you are actually proposing (much is just the same as UWS 1.0). In general UWS 1.1. should be only a clarification (and possible small extension) of UWS 1.0 - I have already made the edits to the document with the uncontroversial clarifications from the last interop.

http://code.google.com/p/volute/source/diff?spec=svn1596&r=1499&format=side&path=/trunk/projects/grid/uws/doc/UWS.html&old_path=/trunk/projects/grid/uws/doc/UWS.html&old=1353

With regard to other of your specific points, I think that I have made a response in http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/grid/2011-May/002503.html.

I will not be attending the Interop in person, but hopefully will be able to at least monitor what is going on remotely if someone can have something like skype running.

Regards,	
	Paul.

On 2011-10 -13, at 12:20, Pierre Le Sidaner wrote:

> | Hi all
> | | As we have discuss it in Napoli, we have made the proposed evolution
> | of the document concerning the rest messages.
> | We have try to simplify the messages
> | to give all the HTTP code response for a message.
> | We only present the modification of paragraph 2 in the document and
> | we have provide also the UML schemas to explain the resources and
> | sequences. As we have not discuss this point with the group we don't
> | promote an xml schema for 1.1.
> | | What are the main difference between 1.0
> | real simplification using REST Principe that will not allow multiple | interpretation of a command
> |       creation and starting a job is on one phase
> |      parameters are include in the starting job phase
> | We hope that this proposition will be much more easy to implement
> | both from server and client phase. It has take us a lot of time and
> | exchange with french agency CNES who have made the first client to
> | write this simplified sequence.
> | We have removed some useless messages on our point of view like abort | from the user. Because it make the same thing as delete as you can
> | not retrieve the result as explain in 1.0 version.
> | We have remove pending phase as describe before. Job can be on
> | suspended phase, but it's only server action.
> | We have add possibility to upload file and not only to give URL
> | | What have to be discuss :
> | pagination for long job list. We can propose a standard way
> | authentication We propose to adopt the RFC standard already existing
> | in HTTP with token
> | WADL as a service description that can leave open any JDL as an XML | description of parameters inside. This is important to build client
> | and allow to describe easily simple service or to have a complex XML
> | model for theory services.
> | | We hope that you have many useful comment on the text. As the resource | schema is quite big, we push you a JPG in supplement to the PDF.
> | | Regards
> | Jonathan, Jean-Christophe and Pierre
> 
> 
> <uws-v1.1.pdf><uws_resources.png>

Dr. Paul Harrison
JBCA, Manchester University
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/jodrellbank