Re: P work in new charter

Thanks I will do that

Abbie Barbir wrote:

>
>
> All,
>
> interesting so far.
> I really suggest that you read about WSDL, CDL, BPEl etc and draw
> lines on what can be done in OPES vs Not. Mnay of your concerns
> regarding service discovery, security, composition, binding etc has
> been addressed there.
>
> Abbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:38 AM
> > To: Markus Hofmann
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: P work in new charter
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate
> > rulesets
> > > > > to the OPES processor.
> > > >
> > > > Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing
> > ones), but
> > > > out of scope of the WG.
> >
> > > > Can you please give me specific pointers to existing mechanisms
> > > > here? I would like
> > > to evaluate their sufficiency  for the intended usage.
> >
> > > For example, use a CLI to load a rules file locally on the
> machine,
> > > use FTP to transfer a rules file, you might use HTTP....
> > >
> > > -Markus
> >
> > Oh! I guess these are fine! I was wondering whether there
> > were any protocols along the lines of WPAD (Web Proxy
> > Auto-Discovery Protocol) for this.
> >
> > The reason I raised the point about "mechanisms to
> > communicate the rules" was based on my trials of using IRML
> > in a practical OPES env. Though IRML did talk about rule sets
> > that included 3 classes of rules - (i)Rules set by OPES
> > administrator, (ii)Rules set by Content Provider and (iii)
> > Rules set by the user/client  - there were several practical
> > problems  in effecting the latter two cases. I guess the
> > question then boils down to  "who are the targetted authors
> > that would use P language to write rulesets?". Clearly it is
> > (i) but do we include (ii) and (iii) ?
> >
> > Thanks and regards
> > geetha
> >
> >
> >