[ISSUE 64] Specification inconsistent on whether a default value forProperty on a Constraining Type is allowed or not - PROPOSAL

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

Here is a Proposal to Resolve Issue
64, done as a marked up version of CD02:



Sometimes, the simplest looking issue
turns out to be surprisingly difficult to fix "properly".

I initially considered just adding a
new normative statement in section 7 which outlaws "values" on
properties, services and references.
 I've done this, but then asked the question as to whether this
should be done via the schema, which
it can be.  So I then modified the schema for constrainingType 
to reference new types of property,
service and reference - ie ConstrainingProperty, ConstrainingService
and ConstrainingReference, all of which
are XSD restrictions which remove all the aspects which are
not allowed by constrainingType.

So as well as section 7, please direct
your attention to the XSD in Appendix A (sca-core.xsd).

Does this go too far?  Is the normative
statement enough on its own??


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02_Issue64.doc