Re: [wsrm] Rel49 Features & Properties proposal.

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Chris,

Thanks for listing out the issues involved. That is helpful.
My answers inlined below.

-Anish
--

chris.hipson@bt.com wrote:
> Rel49 Features & Properties proposal.
> 
> As I see it there are 3 questions here.
> 
> 1) Do we use Features & Properties or something else?
> 

Given that there is nothing else on the table, I would say F&P.
The higher order bit, IMHO, is to have something that is usable in WSDL 
1.1 for wsrm.

> 2) Should it's use be limited to WSDL1.1 RM spec with a statement that
> we will migrate to whatever the industry standard becomes?
> 

Given that wsrm deals only with wsdl 1.1, it is meant to be used with 1.1.
The intention in making is proposal is certainly to limit this to 1.1.
But, I am not sure if there is an value in making a stmt that 'we will 
migrate to whatever the industry std. becomes'. That would be for the 
next version of the spec to decide. In the same sense, that we do not 
make any stmt about WSDL 2.0 (AFAIK) in wsrm.

> 3) Should we use the Oracle namespace of an RM one?
> 

In the new updated proposal that I sent, only RM namespace is used.
I would be happy with either one.

> 
> Anish / Tom - are there any issues with us 'borrowing' something from
> WSDL 2.0?
> 

I am not aware of any issues that would affect us, in this particular case.

> 
> ========================================================================
> ====
> 
> Tom:  Can we have a straw pole / resolve this by e-mail?
> 
> My vote:
> 1) Do we use Features & Properties?
> 
> Yes it's marginally better to have something concrete that may go the
> distance.
> 
> 2) Should its use be limited to WSDL1.1 RM spec with a statement that we
> will migrate to whatever the industry standard becomes?
> 
> Yes, nor do I think we have to highlight WSDL2.0 as a choice, the use of
> F&P will speak for itself anyway.
> 
> 3) Should we use the Oracle namespace of an RM one?
> 
> To restrict this to being within WSRM I think we should use an RM
> namespace.
> 
> Cheers Chris Hipson BTplc
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iwasa [mailto:kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: 03 March 2004 04:41
> To: wsrm; Anish Karmarkar
> Subject: [wsrm] Rel49
> 
> Anish and all,
> 
> Since we have short time remaining before
> WS-I F2F meeting, we must close Rel49 by the telecon 
> next week with concrete proposal with text to be 
> incorporated in the spec.
> 
> *And* if we can not agree the resolution by that time,
> I would propose we do not include anything
> in the spec for Rel49 and close the issue with no action.
> 
> I do not agree to spend additional one more week when
> we can't close the issue by the next telecon.
> 
> So I would propose Anish to send out proposal
> ASAP (by the end of this week at latest, I would suggest) 
> to discuss and agree with the proposal before the telecon, 
> if you really need your proposal accepted. Otherwise there
> would be chance of running out of time.
> 
> I hope we resolve issue49 before the next telecon.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Iwasa
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgrou
> p.php.
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>