RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 135] New: participating-services list needs to have defined semantics and modification mechanisms or be removed

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Colleagues,

This is not a comment on the rights and wrongs of the participating services
element per se, but I would like to make a more general point, which perhaps
'modulates' what Peter says below a little.

As Peter noted in a mail sometime ago, many specification only become useful
when referenced or used in someway by another specification.  This is
particularly true of a specification such as WS-Context.  Now because it can
not stand alone, but only becomes useful when used by some other
specification, I think it is quite reasonable for WS-Context to state this
and give guidance to the using specification writers on points the need to
cover, or beware of.  Thus, if this element is retained (and this general
principle may apply to other aspects as well), then I think there could be
text included in WS-Context along the lines provided by Peter which need to
be suitable modified and added into the referencing specification.
WS-Context should provide guidance on how to incorporate and on the pros and
cons of various options that need to be decided in the using specification.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
 amfletcher@iee.org     (also tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com)
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] 
Sent: 26 June 2004 23:02
To: Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 135] New: participating-services list needs to
have defined semantics and modification mechanisms or be removed


ok, but we need to sort out the original question - is the
participating-services element fully defined in ws-context, or in another
specification. I wasn't sure if your suggestions were referring to context
as whole, or context-by-reference as whole, or just to the 
p-s list.

On the p-s list, are we agreeing
	a) the p-s list is meaningless without additional specification on
how it is maintained
	b) this additional specification is not part of base ws-context
document
	c) therefore the p-s list element should not be in the base context
syntax as defined in the schema and possibly
	d) the p-s list is only useful with context-by-reference

I don't think it would be difficult to work up a sound specification to
define how the p-s list is maintained with context-by-reference. It would be
helpful to have a known use-case, if only to put some sort of boundaries on
things. 
(I was about to include something on this, but I'll make that a separate
thread)

Or were your suggestions covering context by reference in general, rather
than just the p-s list ?  That would seem to relate to issue 91 - I'm not
sure what the status of that really is, and the text I think is meant to
cover it in section 2 is still a bit vague, so I'd be interested
clarification there.

Peter