20041102 Editor's call.

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

Participants in this morning's working group call reviewed
the "Introduction" and "Concepts" sections of the draft
SPMLv2 specification.

Attendees:
- Darran Rolls (Sun)
- Gavenaj Sodhi (CA)
- Jeff Bohren (Open Networks)
- Gary Cole (Sun)

Issues:
-------
1)  Saying that a capability is analogous to a Java interface
    could be interpreted to suggest Java-centricity.

2)  Saying that a target schema may contain DSML is wrong.
    DSMLv2 deprecates schema.  We mean to say schema
    that is defined as part of the DSMLv2 binding for SPML.

3)  A reader could misinterpret the Concepts/Target section
    and think that a Target acts as a provider
    (e.g., that a requestor communicates with a target).

Action Items
------------
1)  Gary Cole to reword Concepts/Capability section.
    Remove any mention of the Java programming language
    and either A) say "programmatic interface"
    or B) find a different way to explain that
    supporting a capability for a schema entity implies that
    the provider supports for any optional operation
    that the capability defines.

2)  Jeff Bohren to suggest appropriate language
    for the specification to describe
    A) a DSML target schema
    B) the DSML profile

3)  Gary Cole to make clear in the Concepts/Target section
    that a target is not a provider (but is instead
    a container of objects that the provider manages).