OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

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


Subject: Joseph's dispositions #1




Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> 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]