RE: Revision and Clarifications of some PDs (reactions to Joe Chuisano's

Thanks Peter. Regarding issue #55: The reason I interpreted this as no PD was that the original text from our v07 spec (lines 638-639) is as follows:

"By and large, unstructured service descriptions do not lend themselves to be understood by a large audience."

My issue was regarding the fact that "unstructured service description" was not defined (even though I believe we are talking about a document or a Web page). The PD provided a definition of *structured* service description, which was not what the issue was about - although I agree it is good to include that definition for clarity purposes.

Suggested route to closing this issue: Clarify what is meant by *unstructured* service description, and follow it with "By contrast, structured service descriptions are..." (then include definition of structured data, tailored to service descriptions).

Regarding a suggested definition for unstructured service description: As a start, a suggested definition for "unstructured data" would be: "Data that is not described according to an E-R model, but is rather of a more free-form format, such as multimedia files or unstructured text.". So a suggested definition for "unstructured service description" would be: "A service description whose format is not structured as per an E-R model, but is rather of a more free-form format such as a document or Web page".

The only caveat here is that some would (justifiably) consider a document or Web page to be semi-structured rather than unstructured. So you may want to convey the notion of "unstructured or semi-structured service descriptions" instead of "unstructured service descriptions". A potential definition for semi-structured service descriptions would be "Service descriptions whose format have both structured and unstructured characteristics, such as a Web page or certain types of documents".

Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

In 27, you are right: contract must specify that "something" has been explicitly agreed between a set of entities. The clue to the possible wording is in the PD for the previous Isuue, N° 26 "...When a specific set of entities accept such a policy, a contract is usually established.". I will re-word, and re-submit.

In 31, my intention was to allow both definitions in the glossary, but I'm more or less happy with your formulation to meld them and will re-submit as a revised PD;

In 55, there *is* a PD:

"Structured data: data that is described according to an E-R (Entity-Relationship) model, such as data in a relational database or an XML document. Structured data can be easily processed due to its organized nature"...As such, I don't understand your comment: could you clarify?

Thx, and best regards,

Next set (issues 29-60, inclusive):

ISSUE 29: Concur with PD - issue closed.

ISSUE 30: No specific PD provided. PD simply provides a URL to the new semantics section, with no further explanation given. The new semantics section does not include the word "context" anywhere - so I am not certain whether the text that describes context was relocated to another section (and I need to verify the issue against that instance), or if it has been removed from our spec altogether. Issue still open.

ISSUE 31: Do not concur with PD, as it offered 2 definitions for "fabric" but did not stipulate which would be placed in the glossary (and the Discovery, Presence, & Availability section to which a link was provided did not include the word "fabric"). Given a preference, I actually prefer the 2 definitions combined as follows: An abstract concept that represents the environment in which a service resides, is discovered, is invoked, and is managed, and via which messages are carried between entities that interact with the service. Issue still open.

ISSUE 32: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 33: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 34: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 35: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 36: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 37: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 38: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 39: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 40: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 41: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 42: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 43: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 44: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 45: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 46: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 47: No PD provided at all. Issue still open.

ISSUE 48: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 49: No PD provided at all. Issue still open.

ISSUE 50: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 51: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 53: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 55: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 56: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 57: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 58: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 59: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

ISSUE 60: No specific PD provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still open.

Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

Here is my feedback on PDs for issues 6-28 (all mine). This is for the version sent 6/17, archived at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/soa-rm/200506/msg00167.html. I will send another e-mail soon (Mon/Tues) with another group - this is all I had a chance for right now.

Please note: My stating "issue closed" or "issue still open" below is not meant to be controversial - rather, it is my way of ensuring that I communciate 100% clearly what I believe the status of the issue to be so that no one comes back later if I have comments on text and says "you should not have stated that the issue was closed". Many of the "issue still open" below are because the PD stated that additional text need to be added or existing text updated, but the new/updated text was not provided. My assumption here is that we cannot consider an issue closed if the new/updated text is not provided.

If our procedures are such that an issue can be closed if new/updated text is not provided in the PD, and the new/updated text can be commented on when it is added (and a new issue created then if necessary), then please consider feedback below of "Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open." to mean that the issue should then be closed.

Clear as mud? For me too.;)

Here they are:

ISSUE 6: Concur with PD - issue closed.

ISSUE 7: Recommend removing entire paragraph, which is consistent with there the PD was heading (details probably not appropriate for an RM, as they are too implementation-specific). This recommend should be clarified with editor before closing issue.

ISSUE 9: Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open.

ISSUE 10: Concur with PD - issue closed.

ISSUE 11: PD indicates further action needed on this - issue still open.

ISSUE 12: Concur with PD's suggestion of referencing the definition of context provided as PD for issue #105. However, may have minor comments on Issue #105's definition - will provide later for Issue 105. Issue 12 is closed.

ISSUE 13: PD indicates further action needed on this - issue still open.

ISSUE 14: Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open.

ISSUE 15: Do not concur with PD. Believe we should still provide a "lighter" example that is not related to supersonic jet speeds and flow dynamics, for maximum possible chance of reader comprehension. Issue still open.

ISSUE 16: Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open.

ISSUE 17: PD refered to an invalid issue # (07-01). Need proper reference - issue still open.

ISSUE 18: Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open.

ISSUE 19: Concur with PD - issue closed.

ISSUE 21: Do not concur with PD, as it did not not address the comment which was that we should clarify what we mean by "standard, reference-able format". For example, do we mean data exchange format (XML, EDI, etc.)? Do we mean a data standard that is created by a community of interest (COI), regardless of whether it is expressed in XML, EDI, etc. (or multiple formats)? Issue still open.

ISSUE 22: Concur with PD - issue closed.

ISSUE 23: Do not concur with PD, as I am not certain why we are talking about resources here rather than services. Perhaps we need a section on resources and their relation to services, if that is pertinent for our work. Issue still open.

ISSUE 26: Concur with PD, exact wording at cited location in spec still pending - issue still open.

ISSUE 27: Do not concur with PD because do not concur with proposed definition of contract. The proposed definition does not reference the fact that a contract requires 2 or more parties, as it does on line 186 (Service Consumer and service). It is also too close to the definition for policy. There was a link provided to the most recent Semantics section, but providing this did not address the original issue which was for line 186. Issue still open.

ISSUE 28: Concur with PD - issue closed.

soa-rm message