OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

provision message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: Comment on the Core 08 spec...

I am copying the below correspondence between JeffB and myself to the
list so it may be referenced as changes to the next draft.

See below:

Darran Rolls                      http://www.waveset.com
Waveset Technologies Inc          drolls@waveset.com 
512) 657 8360                     

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:39 PM
> To: Darran Rolls
> Subject: Comment on the Core 08 spec...
> Darran,
> Some comments on the core 08 spec:
> On reading this I realized that the core spec is slanted toward just 
> the SPML/SOAP profile. The core spec need to apply equally to the SOAP

> and File bindings as well as any future bindings we might develop.

[DJR] Jeff - how specifically does this shows itself?

> We should stop using the term "Schema Schema". It feels too much like 
> the Catch-22 character Major Major Major Major. A perferable term 
> should be "Provisioning Schema".

[DJR] Agreed.  Unless anyone has pain with this I will change this in
draft 09.

> Globally you need to remove the :core, :schema, and :req name 
> qualifiers form all SPML urns.
> In 5.2 SPML is spelled SPMLL
> In 5.3 you refer to an :operation namespace in the URN. There is no 
> such namespace.
> In 7.1 you refer to "name=value pairs" (this is used elsewhere to). I 
> would prefer "name=(multi)value pairs", since an attribute could have 
> multiple values if defined that way.
> In 7.3.1 we say the add request create a new instance of a service. 
> This is not a good description because the add request could be 
> creating any number of things (e.g. a new group). It would be better 
> to say that the add request creates a new instance of an object as 
> defined by its object classes.
> In 7.3.2, same comment about service instances.
> In 7.3.3, same comment about service instances.
> In 7.3.4, same comment about service instances.
> In 7.6 instead of "Service Schema" I would use the term "Provisioning 
> Schema".
> In 7.6 in the example the object class would not be ":standard". 
> Rather it would be an object class in the "standard" schema, such as 
> ":standard:person".

[DJR] Above all included in 09 draft.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]