RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments

["Nikula, Richard" <Richard_Nikula@bmc.com>]

2.1.1 - shouldn't it be capabilities?  In reading the remainder of this section, I expected it to say capabilities not qualities

 

RN

-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:49 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments

Here are some comments on MUWS Part 1 which might require some discussion.
I already sent a bunch of editorial/clarification on top of Mark Ellisons to William which are in the 1127 version of the document.

Section 2.1: I'm not sure I agree that the contract includes discoverability. Certainly the contract cannot be exercised if it can't be discovered.  I think this just needs rewording.

Section 2.1.1: There is some concern in IBM about confusing 'quality' here with the more general qos concept. Can we choose another word?

Section 4.1: I think we should RECOMMEND  ReportTime too.

Section 5.1.2: Section ResourceId Consitency - I think this is a MUST

Section 6: Should we add a WS-I compliance requirement as a MUST or SHOULD?

Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572