Re: [soa-eerp] I040: Rating - Protocol or Vocabulary

[William Cox <wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>]

This refers to Rating, not BQoS.

This is NOT OK to close as duplicate, as this is the substantive technical issue, not the editorial issue cited in i030.

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:

380-2200963247912695@M2W103.mail2web.com" type="cite">

There is only one reference on "protocol" on this bQoS spec and has been
already addressed on issue # I030. 

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 03:34:21 -0400
To: wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com, soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-eerp] I040: Rating - Protocol or Vocabulary


Issue # I040

For Rating Spec only. 

Related issues: I039 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