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: Current Spec Issues (was"Re: [provision] SPML Con Call Agenda, 5-10-05").


The current list of spec issues is attached. 
Draft 7 is in-progress but does not yet incorporate XSD 17,
which includes the new Search Query Clauses.

Bohren, Jeffrey wrote:

>Call in info:
>Tel: 1-888-384-9090 or
>Tel: 1-719-955-1560        
>Passcode: 259989
> 
>Agenda,
> 
>1) Approve the minutes for April 26th [1]
> 
>2) Approve the minutes for May 3rd [2]
> 
>3) Latest SPML 2.0 Core Spec Draft and issues 
> 
>4) Time line for SPML 2.0 Approval
> 
>  
>


3. What is the 'namespaceURI' value for a SPML1.0 (DSMLv2) attribute expression?
20050325 - Overlap?
20050329 - Still may want to mention this as an example in the main spec.
20050331 - SPMLv2 DSML Profile doc should specify this.


4. Search on references.
		A requestor can query for Person instances based on “owner” 
      	only if the provider defines “owner” as an element or attribute of Person 
              in the schema for the target.  In such a case, what would the value of “owner” look like? 
              Would “owner=’joebob’ work?
20050329 - Discussed in con-call.  
           - Jeff said to say only what we do (not what we don't do).
           - Hal said to say we don't if people will assume that we do.
           - Compromise: ability to search on references is unspecified.
20050329 - Jeff Bohren suggested that maybe we *could* search on references.  I said I'd help.
20050412 - Jeff Bohren will enhance XSD 16 to support search on capability-specific data.


5. Should Custom Capabilities point to a "registry" of custom capabilities.
20050222 - Darran suggested that the PSTC should maintain such a registry.


6. Update "Security and privacy considerations".
20050215 - Darran says that we should update this.  Wants a volunteer.
20050222 - Hal Lockhart volunteered to update this. Keep this in the spec.
20050329 - Hal thinks he can do this during this week.


7. Appendix I (throughout): Document references need validation and update.
20050329 - Raj volunteered during the con-call to do this.

8. Appendix L: Glossary.  Definitions need review and update.
20050222 - Point to a separate document for Glossary.
20050329 - Raj volunteered during the con-call to do this.

9. Jeff Bohren suggested text for "Conversational flow". 
20050405 - Jeff sent email: "Suggested text for version 3.1.1".
20050405 - I'd already removed the word "blocking".
           Overlooks the case where provider chooses asynchronous execution.
20050419 - (Jeff Bohren) wrote the following:
	 In the conversational flow you imply a difference between "Orderly
	Alteration" and "Outstanding Request" that simply are not true. Using
	SOAP/HTTP as the transport a multi-threaded client could have several
	outstanding requests with needing to use request IDs.  Your text and
	diagrams imply otherswise. The distinction should not be between sequential
	and parallel requests, but between synchronous and asynchronous request.
	Synchronous requests can be issued in parallel and do not necessitate a
	request ID unless issued over an asycnhronous protocol (which SOAP/HTTP is
	not).
20050421 - Sent email to list: "Conversational flow" asking for help.

10. What if reference capability declaration contains no reference definition?
	[Ed. If the provider did not declare any typeOfReference within target2’s declaration 
	of the Reference Capability for Person, would this mean that an instance of Person on target2 
	may use any type of reference refer to an instance of any schema entity on any target?]
11. What if a reference definition does not specify a targetID on the canReferTo schema entity?
	[Ed. If the provider did not specify a targetID within “Person-owns-Account”, 
	would this be an error (since target2 does not support Account), or would this mean that 
	an instance of Person on target2 may use the “owns” type of reference refer to 
	an instance of Account on any target?]

12. Rami wants each request element to have a corresponding response element for clarity.
20050404 - We can do this without defining another type.  Sent email: "Request/response pairs."
20050405 - (d06) Illustrate the addition of a new top-level element bulkModifyResponse of type spml:ResponseType.
20050419 - Agreed during con-call to define a top-level element for each request and response.


|13. Spec should describe Complex References (per M.Raeppler's Issues re: Suspend Capability)
|20050417 - (d07) Discussed Complex References in Reference Capability section.
|20050417 - Posted draft_pstc_spmlv2_reference_capability.doc to the list.
|20050419 - Martin Raeppler liked the draft, and wanted it in Draft 7.
|

14.  How does a provider declare the structure of reference data for complex references?
	Reference Definition contain xml schema (or refer to schema entity)?


|15. Company affiliations for Gerry Woods and Darran Rolls are incorrect.
|20050421 - QUESTION. Sent email to list: "Company affiliations".
|	- Both were affiliated with OASIS members when they contributed.
|	- Both now belong to companies that are not OASIS members.
|	- Neither company wishes to disavow the contribution of its former employee.
|20050421 - SOA Software is now a member; list Gerry Woods as SOA.
|20050421 - Darran Rolls says to keep him listed as Sun.
|20050421 - (d07) Updated company affiliations for Bohren, Woods, and Rolls.
|
 
16. Line 559: the IdentifierType is used to identify targets, but is not limited
to targets. To date only targets are identified using an element of type
IdentifierType, but that may well change in the future. The type
IdentifierType should be considered a generic type for which
PSOIdentifierType is a specialization.
20050421 - DEFER. Sent email to list: "IdentifierType...".  Part of XSD issue #67 (targetID).
 
|17. Draft 6, Lines 574 to 576. Strike these lines. This is not appropriate for normative text
|and is too basic to put into a spec document.
|20050421 - (d07) Fixed in Draft 7.
| 
|18. Draft 6, Line 697: String "The PSTC believes that". If we believe something we should
|just say it.
|20050421 - (d07) Fixed in Draft 7.
|
|19. Draft 6, Line 722: use "discovery" in place of "bootstrap"
|20050421 - (d07) Fixed in Draft 7.
| 
|20. Draft 6, Line 804: change "The PSTC recomends that the provider explicitly declare"
|to "The provider should explicitly declare". Everything in this documents
|should be what the TC believes by definition.
|20050421 - (d07) Fixed in Draft 7.
 
21. Draft 6. Globally change psoId to psoID, targetId to targetID, and containerId to
containerID.
20050421 - AGREE. Need to do this in the XSD (issue #75).
 
22. Draft 6, Line 962: An add request MAY omit both the target ID and container ID if the
PSP has only one target and containment is not being specified. 
20050421 - Sent email to list: "AddRequest targetId, containerID and psoID."

23. Draft 6, Line 962: An add request MAY contain a PSO ID. This section implies otherwise.
20050421 - Sent email to list: "AddRequest targetId, containerID and psoID."
 
|24. Draft 6, Line 1128: Pso should be PSO
|20050421 - (d07) AGREE.  Fixed in Draft 7.
|
|25. Draft 6, Line 1158 and 1161: pso should not be in red.
|20050421 - (d07) AGREE.  Fixed in Draft 7.

26. Draft 6, Line: 1189 In the example change toPsoId to psoID. Change XSDs also.
20050421 - DISAGREE. Sent email to list: "ReferenceType#toPsoId".  Was XSD issue#57.

27. Effective date. Regardless if the attribute is declared as a xsd:string or an xsd:datetime,
the spec should mandate that the date be UTC format date/time string (with
no offsets), in GMT. That is actually more restrictive than the xsd:datetime
declaration.


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