[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-eerp] I039: BQoS - Protocol or Vocabulary
OK with this, however i029 proposal 2 has problems. Proposal 1 of that
is fine. bill -- William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn wrote: 380-2200963247645975@M2W004.mail2web.com" type="cite">There is only one reference on "protocol" on this bQoS spec and has been already addressed on issue # I029. The issue should be closed due to duplicated. Szu Chang Original Message: ----------------- From: eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:32:50 -0400 To: wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com, soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-eerp] I039: BQoS - Protocol or Vocabulary Issue # I039 For BQoS Spec only. Related issues: I040 and I041 Original Message: ----------------- From: William Cox wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:05:02 -0400 To: soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-eerp] NEW Issue: Protocol or Vocabulary PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSION THREAD UNTIL THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER. The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred. Protocol: bqos rating sla Artifact: spec Type: design Title: Protocol or Vocabulary Description: This issue applies to BusinessQualityOfService-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf BusinessRating-v1.0-spec-wd05.pdf BusinessServiceLevelAgreement-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf Example is from BQOS. See line 3, which ways "...End-to-End Resource Planning, a protocol..." These specifications appear to specify an XML vocabulary for message payloads or information exchange, rather than a protocol to define the interactions. Related issues: Proposed Resolution: Change references to "protocol" to describe instead an XML vocabulary for information exchange. Address in the introductions for each specification. If a protocol is intended to be defined, perhaps creating a separate protocol specification would be in order, but I believe that the purpose is better served by changing the descriptions to state explicitly that a protocol is NOT being defined. bill cox -- *William Cox* Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com <mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com> Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]