RE: [wsdm] <Capability> metadata

[Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>]

If you look at the Metadata Descriptor
submitted to WS-RF there is a way to associate operations metadata with
an operation qname.  
We don't have an event qname that we
can really associate metadata with.  We punted on any event metadata
for wsdm 1.0. 

But I agree in principle, there should
be a way and there will be metadata on events.  but its not relevant
to us for WSDM 1.0.

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

"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>

12/02/2004 09:24 PM

To	Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>, <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [wsdm] <Capability> metadata

Well, doesn't MUWS say that <Capability> also applies
to  events?
We do not have any other metadata on operations too. It's
going to be just  <Capability> events are not different from
that standpoint.
-----Original Message----- 
From: Heather Kreger  [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]

Sent: Thu 12/2/2004 6:11 PM  
To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org

Cc:  
Subject: RE: [wsdm] <Capability>  metadata



We only have one  operation in all of MUWS (its in
relationships). So, I don't think that its  tedious to add the capaility
metadata for that operation. 
Its certainly more conssitent and less impact than  another
reorg.  And it is easy to understand everything in a capability  without
haveing to flip back and forth all through the spec.  When you  follow
the same format its easier for people to follow even if it seems  overdone.


As long as we make this  statement IN EACH capability
it might be ok... but I'm not sure its any less  tedious and might
be more confusing. 

Of course its tedious.  Its a normative (mostly)
spec.  We  struck all the poetry and art. :-)


We have no metadata for Events so no whining there.
 

I won't lie down in the road over this.  

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

"Vambenepe, William N"  <vbp@hp.com>  

12/02/2004 05:47 PM

To	"Sedukhin, Igor S"  <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>,  <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [wsdm]  <Capability> metadata

It really seems to me that we are repeating stuff over
and  over  again and it makes the spec really long and tedious.
All the   properties/operations/events we define are clearly
defined as part of  one  capability and the URI for this capability
is clearly indicated in  the beginning  of the section hat defines
this capability. Can't we just  say once that every  property/operation/event
has as "capability"  metadata the URI of the capability
 that it is defined in and be done  with this?

  
This is the  same reason why I was (still am) against
 repeating for each capability  that it is a topic defined for
all events about  this capability. This  can just as well be
said once. But on the call today the  group decided  to repeat
it for every capability so fine, I'll do  that.
 
  
But for "capability" we are  talking about
not just doing it  once per capability but once per  operation/property/event.
This is ridiculous! I  agree with Igor's remark  that it's not
very logical to only say it for  properties but to be  consistent
I would much rather say it once and for  all.

  
William

---

From: Sedukhin, Igor S   [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]

Sent:  Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:34  PM

To:  wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: [wsdm]   <Capability>
metadata 

It seems that  MUWS  p2 only declares such metadata
for properties and never on any  event or  operation. I wonder
1) should this at all be declared in the  spec 2) should it  be
declared everywhere then 
  

--Igor  Sedukhin..   (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)

--(631)  342-4325..  1 CA Plaza, Islandia,
 NY11749