Toby --
So the real question is what in the PIM is the base class for any of
the "new" classes. Is this a PSM? Should I look at the XSD?
Comments referenced to wd03 pdf:
- The use of StreamBaseType is not clear to me. How does this
relate to PIM and WS-Calendar?
- Copyright should be 2012-2013...but TCAdmin will do that as
needed.
- Bookmark not defined in the TOC
- No brackets around line 2
- line 4 : "will benefit" should be "benefit"?
- Not a biggie, but I don't hyphenate "time series"
- line 72 Why is namespace ...ns/energyinterop ? shouldn't it be
in ws-calendar? or one of the URNs? see strm on line 78.
- line 78 Is WSDL important?
- line 109 - mixing quote of WS-Calendar? WS-Calendar as quoted
by PIM? I think they're the same. Should the reference on line
115 be to WS-Calendar or PIM?
- line 116 is this section normative?
- line 128 caption uses "WS-Calendar Partition" but it's not in
the definitions in the previous section. It's in WS-Calendar at
202 and PIM at 84. I assume that since it's key to line 161,
that it should be defined in the tables not just in an example
caption. So insert definition in table 2-1.
- Line 114 table does not say non-normative but line 143 does.
- 214 "Market Signal Payload"? - change to "Payload" assuming
properly defined. Yes it is in table 3-1.
- 215 is the order required to reflect temporal order, e.g.
sorting by start times? If a partition that seems implicit but
could be explicit.
- line 109: I think the model needs to be different; in PIM the
"related-to" is not "RelatedToPropType", it's
RelationLink[Type]. Is that a suggestion to change the PIM type
to RelationLinkType in parallel with GluonType? Good
suggestion.
- Not sure how the ArrayOf types reflect in PIM - it's more an
XSD concept as I recall. We need to talk.
- StreamPayloadBase is not in the document text; viz. figure at
199.
- l203 seems a carryover from WS-Calendar Streams, rather than
PIM-based. What is "conformant communications"? Sounds like a
carryover from WS-Calendar as WS message content?
- 210 MAY NOT could probably be MUST NOT? or is the intent MAY
but SHOULDN"T? In which case SHOULD NOT is appropriate. MAY NOT
is not in RFC2119.
- PIM DOESN'T HAVE UIDs - PUT IN NON-EXISTENT JIRA COMPONENT
- PIM UIDs (if included) may simplify section 3.x
- 257 didn't we have confidence, or did we put it into the
payload?
- I'd like a nice compact example of observational data in
l226ff. Possible non-normative appendix?
- l247 what is the "service Context"? is that line 173? Is it
defined?
In general seems much clearer and cleaner.
Thanks!
bill
|