XML Daily Newslink. Thursday, 21 September 2006

[Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org>]

XML Daily Newslink. Thursday, 21 September 2006
A Cover Pages Publication http://xml.coverpages.org/
Provided by OASIS http://www.oasis-open.org
Edited by Robin Cover

====================================================

This issue of XML.org Daily Newslink is sponsored
by IBM Corporation  http://www.ibm.com

====================================================

HEADLINES:

* Meet the Specs: Introduction to WS-ResourceTransfer 1.0
* Profiling XML Schema
* The Incident Object Description Exchange Format
* Office 2007 For Mac Planned For Mid-2007
* IETF Publishes New Language Tag Specifications
* Sun Seeks to Add Non-Java Support to JCP
* Yale to Post Courses on Web for Free

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Meet the Specs: Introduction to WS-ResourceTransfer 1.0
Kane Scarlett, IBM developerWorks

The WS-ResourceTransfer 1.0 initial draft specification (WS-RT) is a
proposed open standard that extends certain operations by allowing
fragments of XML code in a single resource to be addressed instead of
having to affect the entire resource. The WS-ResourceTransfer 1.0 initial
draft specification defines extensions to WS-Transfer, a general SOAP-
based protocol for accessing XML representations of Web service-based
resources. WS-Transfer defines a mechanism for acquiring XML-based
representations of entities using the Web service infrastructure. It
defines two types of entities -- resources and resource factories.
Resources are Web services that are addressable by an endpoint reference
(as defined in WS-Addressing) that provides an XML representation.
Resource factories are Web services that can create a new resource from
an XML representation. What WS-T specifically defines is two operations
for sending and receiving the representation of a given resource and two
operations for creating and deleting a resource and its corresponding
representation. The family of Web services specifications, the "WS-"
group, is designed to interoperate with other members of the family to
deliver a set of tools for the Web services environment. As such, this
specification relies on other WS specifications for such functions as
message delivery and to express WS metadata. WS-RT is an essential core
component of a unified resource access protocol for Web services. The
WS-RT extensions deal mostly with fragment-based access to resources to
satisfy the common requirements of WS-ResourceFramework and WS-Management
specifications.  This introduction provides an overview of the
specification, examines its heritage, and starts climbing the learning
curve by uncovering the definition of fragments and discovering the
three expression dialects employed in WS-RT.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/ac-mts2.html
See also WS-RT references: http://xml.coverpages.org/computingResourceManagement.html#ws-rt

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Profiling XML Schema
Paul Kiel, XML.com

XML Schema is now five years old, having matured from a newborn into
an active youngster. So what have we learned about this young one's
personality? We've always known it was complex. Indeed, the original
debate about whether to make it a Recommendation indicated concern.
This rich toolset has caused schema designers to wonder which features
they should or should not use. If we analyze what people are actually
implementing, perhaps we can glean some guidance. I decided to embark
on a quest to see if we can put together a profile of XML Schema based
on experiences thus far. Many industry consortia have issued design
guidelines and/or patterns for developing libraries of schemas
according to their profile. Having read many of these either formally
or informally, [I found that] they are often explicit about what
features of XML Schema are allowed or disallowed. What features of XML
Schema are folks actually using? Is there a consensus of opinion on
the most common constructs? Are there features schema designers are
avoiding? I accumulated data on over 1,400 schemas from numerous
standards consortia to see if there is a common XML Schema profile
reflecting a consensus of practice. [So] I examined schemas from the
following organizations: The Open Applications Group (OAGi); The Open
Travel Alliance (OTA); Human Resources XML (HR-XML); Chemical Industry
Data Exchange (CIDX); IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS); Association
for Retail Technology Standards (ARTS); Mortgage Industry Standards
Maintenance Organization (MISMO); World Wide Web Consortium (W3C,
including mathML); Global Justice XML; ACORD. Examining what schema
designers are actually implementing can indeed reveal a usage profile
of XML Schema. It is in this profile of practice that our five-year-old's
personality emerges. The clearest message is one of simplicity. The
most commonly used constructs involve merely creating reusable types,
assembling them into sequences of elements, and augmenting them with
enumerations. Many of the more complex features went unused. In
addition, the test cases also reflected explicitness in their schemas,
as evidenced in the avoidance of mixing or abstracting content and the
qualifying of element form defaults. Adhering to the design patterns
reflected in this usage profile will serve schema designers well.

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/09/20/profiling-xml-schema.html
See also XML Schema languages: http://xml.coverpages.org/schemas.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Incident Object Description Exchange Format
Roman Danyliw (et al., eds), IETF Internet Draft

Members of the IETF Extended Incident Handling Working Group have
published an updated version of the "Incident Object Description
Exchange Format" specification. The Incident Object Description Exchange
Format (IODEF) defines a data representation that provides a framework
for sharing information commonly exchanged by Computer Security Incident
Response Teams (CSIRTs) about computer security incidents. It provides
an XML representation for conveying incident information across
administrative domains between parties that have an operational
responsibility of remediation or a watch-and-warning over a defined
constituency. The data model encodes information about hosts, networks,
and the services running on these systems; attack methodology and
associated forensic evidence; impact of the activity; and limited
approaches for documenting workflow. The overriding purpose of the
IODEF is to enhance the operational capabilities of CSIRTs. Community
adoption of the IODEF provides an improved ability to resolve incidents
and convey situational awareness by simplifying collaboration and data
sharing. The purpose of the Incident Handling working group is to
define data formats for communication between (a) a CSIRT and its
constituency (e.g., users, customers, trusted reporters) which reports
system misuse; (b) a CSIRT and parties involved in an incident
investigation (e.g., law enforcement, attacking site); and (c)
collaborating CSIRTs sharing information. This format will support
the now largely human-intensive dimension of the incident handling
process. It will represent the product of various incremental data
gathering and analysis operations performed by a CSIRT from the time
when the system misuse was initially reported (perhaps by an automated
system) till ultimate resolution..."

http://xml.coverpages.org/draft-ietf-inch-iodef-10.txt
See also Application Security Standards: http://xml.coverpages.org/appSecurity.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Office 2007 For Mac Planned For Mid-2007
Andy Patrizio, Internetnews.com

Outside of Apple, the biggest Macintosh developer is none other than
Microsoft. Granted, the 180 developers in the Macintosh Business Unit,
or Mac BU as Microsoft likes to call it, is a pittance compared to the
5,000 working on Vista. But Microsoft's continued support of the Mac
(over 20 years and counting), through lean times and lawsuits, is
impressive. Earlier this year at MacWorld, Microsoft promised it would
support the Mac for at least five more years. Its next big release will
be Office 2007 for Macintosh, due around six to eight months after the
release of the latest Windows version of Office expected in January.
Development of the Mac version of Office 2007 couldn't even begin until
recently. The BU recently hit a milestone of converting all of its
Macintosh application code to Apple's Xcode, the Macintosh platform for
developing a single set of binaries that are compatible with new Intel-
based Macs as well as older PowerPC-based machines.  The move to Xcode
means that Microsoft's Mac group can now start to move over to the Intel
architecture. However, it does not mean that the Mac unit will simply
take the code developed for the Windows version of Office and port it
over. "It won't be exactly the same experience. There is not 1:1 parity
between the two, but we work to make sure there is a high degree of
compatibility," said Sheridan Jones. "A PC customer can sit down at a
Mac and have a familiar experience, but it won't be identical." There
will be some Windows Office code used in Office 2007 for the Mac, but
only select pieces, said Jones. A good example is the file formats.
Office 2007 is moving to XML file formats, so Mac office 2007 will pick
up the same file formats to maintain compatibility.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3633326

----------------------------------------------------------------------

IETF Publishes New Language Tag Specifications
Staff, W3C Announcement

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published two new
specifications for language tags. RFC 4646: "Tags for the Identification
of Languages:, describes the structure, content, construction, and
semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
indicate the language used in an information object. It also describes
how to register values for use in language tags and the creation of
user-defined extensions for private interchange. This document, in
combination with RFC 4647, replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766.
Language tags can be used to specify user preferences when selecting
information content, or for labeling additional attributes of content
and associated resources. Tags can also be used to indicate additional
language attributes of content. For example, indicating specific
information about the dialect, writing system, or orthography used in
a document or resource may enable the user to obtain information in a
form that they can understand, or it can be important in processing or
rendering the given content into an appropriate form or style. The new
IANA Language Subtag Registry extends language tag syntax to address a
number of long-standing issues. RFC 4647 "Matching of Language Tags"
describes a syntax, called a "language-range", for specifying items in
a user's list of language preferences. It also describes different
mechanisms for comparing and matching these to language tags. Two kinds
of matching mechanisms, filtering and lookup, are defined. Filtering
produces a (potentially empty) set of language tags, whereas lookup
produces a single language tag. Possible applications include language
negotiation or content selection. The W3C I18n GEO Working Group
provides a gentle introduction to the new syntax ("Language tags in
HTML and XML").

http://www.w3.org/News/2006#item165
See also Language Identifiers in the Markup Context: http://xml.coverpages.org/languageIdentifiers.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sun Seeks to Add Non-Java Support to JCP
Darryl K. Taft, eWEEK

Sun Microsystems is moving to make change to the Java Community Process
(JCP) to better enable Java to interoperate with non-Java environments.
Onno Kluyt, chair of the JCP, said Sun has proposed a new JSR (Java
Specification Request), JSR 306, posted on September 19, 2006 to make
changes to the JCP. Regarding the liaison relationships between the JCP
and other standards organizations, Kluyt said many JSRs involve
technology that relates to work being done by groups such as the W3C
(World Wide Web Consortium), OASIS (the Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards) and OMG (the Object
Management Group). From the text of JSR 306: "This JSR proposes several
changes to the JSPA and to the JCP process document. The changes are
both of a streamlining nature: [1] further improve the transparency of
the process; [2] further optimize the average duration of JSRs; [3] how
can individuals best participate in the process; as well as of a
potentially more fundamental nature: [4] allowing non-Java
implementations of a JSR's specification; [5] ability to create liaison
relationships with other standards organizations; [6] easing the
migration of pre-existing technology towards an agreed upon standard;
[7] the availability of TCK and associated licensing information upon
completion of a JSR.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2017709,00.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yale to Post Courses on Web for Free
Staff, Reuters [and CNet News.com]

Yale University said on Wednesday it will offer digital videos of some
courses on the Internet for free, along with transcripts in several
languages, in an effort to make the elite private school more accessible.
While Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
others already offer course material online without charge, Yale is the
first to focus on free video lectures, the New Haven, Conn.-based school
said. The 18-month pilot project will provide videos, syllabi and
transcripts for seven courses beginning in the 2007 academic year. They
include "Introduction to the Old Testament," "Fundamentals of Physics"
and "Introduction to Political Philosophy." The courses cannot be
counted toward a Yale degree. Students at Yale -- one of the nation's
most exclusive schools and the alma mater of President Bush -- can be
expected to spend nearly $46,000 for this year's tuition, room and
board.

http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-6118009.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BEA Systems, Inc.         http://www.bea.com
IBM Corporation           http://www.ibm.com
Innodata Isogen           http://www.innodata-isogen.com
SAP AG                    http://www.sap.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc.    http://sun.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsletter subscribe: xml-dailynews-subscribe@lists.xml.org
Newsletter unsubscribe: xml-dailynews-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
Newsletter help: xml-dailynews-help@lists.xml.org
Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------