[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Next Set - #29-#60) RE: [soa-rm] Feedback on Latest Issues List
To respond to the responses.... First of all, as I had earlier indicated, I believed that the semantics section required a rewrite. This was not especially in response to feedback issues but because it seemed to require a rewrite. It is true that the new semantics section does not mention explicitly context. It does, however, allude to transactions in the process model. Other than that, the previous text on context appeared to be misleading so it was dropped. I think that it would not be appropriate for an SOA RM to go into much detail about process models; for a similar reason to there not being a service consumer. Other than declaring that there is a process model, and that that is part of the semantics of SOAs, more detail should be left to the BPEL/CAF folk. In my submission, I proposed that issues 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 75, 76, 85, 87, 89, 92, 93, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190 were 'disposed of' or 'moot'. For most of these, the correct term would have been 'moot'; i.e., the background was sufficiently changed to render the comment meaningless. There was a real reason that the semantics section was re-written. Before, it was uncomfortably close to doing architecture and was not properly addressing what semantics meant. I hope that the new section is better. On balance, I think that it may be better to try to schedule a decent amount of discussion of this section in the F2F. Frank On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > 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. > > > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 2:33 PM > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [soa-rm] Feedback on Latest Issues List > > 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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]