I slipped and pressed Send before I was finished :-) Continuing...
Section 188.8.131.52: bullets for E_unsupported and E_unvalidatable have
"should" instead of "SHOULD"
Section 184.108.40.206: I may have overlooked something, but I cannot see any way
that the returned publisherAssertions structure can contain anything different
from the supplied list of publisherAssertion objects (assuming that
set_publisherAssertions succeeds). Should we make a comment to that
Section 220.127.116.11: the diagram of the keyBag has the cardinality indicated on
the sequence symbol, rather than on the key symbol, which makes it inconsistent
with all the other diagrams. The cardinality should be moved to the key.
Section 5.5.12 first line: "Node" should be "node".
Section 18.104.22.168 second paragraph, first line: "UDDI MUST reject" should
probably be: "the UDDI node MUST reject".
Section 22.214.171.124: generally arguments have been discussed in alphabetical
order - is that important?
Section 126.96.36.199 first line: "value values" should be "valid values".
Section 188.8.131.52: everywhere else the error codes are listed without values
(meaning that they could be changed without impact). Should we remove the
values, such as "(10210)", from here?
Section 7.2.4 last paragraph, first sentence. I don't understand the
sentence: "A comsuming node MAY reset the originating USN another value that had
previously been requested for a given node." - I am guessing that a word is
missing. Perhaps "to" should be inserted after "USN"?
Section 7.3.9 third paragraph (last one before the diagram) contains
"...may be replicated with a given registry...". I think this should probably be
"...may be replicated within a given registry...".
Section 184.108.40.206: should it include the xml rendition of the success
dispositionReport? This is redundant, and just one more thing we have to change,
for example when the API version changes. I suggest deleting it.
Section 220.127.116.11: there is no specification of the return message. Is it
just the operatorNodeID? Or is it contained in something?
Section 18.104.22.168: should we have a diagram of the return message with the
Section 7.5.1, fourth last paragraph. "Thus, change datum can always be
propagated..." should be "Thus, change data can always be propagated...", or
possibly "Thus, changed data can always be propagated...".
From: Rogers, Tony
Sent: Thu 14/08/2003 12:56
To: Luc Clement;
further comments on 3.0.1
Section 22.214.171.124: omits description from the diagram for serviceInfo. I
thought there was an approved CR requiring the addition of description to
- - - - - -
Section 126.96.36.199.1 is confusing. I found the pseudo-code difficult to
decypher, and the presence of (first example) and (second example) in the
table had me looking at the pseudo-code for two instances of the (case 4)
label. I recommend, at least, removing the (first example) and (second
example) comments from the table - trust the reader to work out that there are
I'd suggest re-writing the pseudo code as follows to make it easier to
1. if x is a keygeneratorkey, and y is that
key without the :keygenerator suffix, then:
1.a if y is a domain key, then x is a
top-level keygenerator, and has no keygeneratorkey
1.b if y is a derived key, and z is the key
on which it is based, then x's keygeneratorkey is z:keygenerator
2. if x is a domainkey, then x's
keygeneratorkey is x:keygenerator
3. if x is a derivedkey, and y is the key
on which it is based, then x's keygeneratorkey is y:keygenerator
this gets the nasty case out of the way first, and lets us glide over the
question of whether a keygeneratorkey is a derived key (the earlier discussion
suggests that it is not). If we use this pseudo-code, then the numeric
references in the table become: 2, 1.a, 1.b, 3, 3.
- - - - - -
Section 5.2.8 delete_business has footnote 21, which ends: ", or matching
serviceKey values between businessService elements and bindingTemplate
elements." - this suggests the possibility of bindingTemplate projections,
which are not mentioned anywhere else in the standard that I've seen - I
recommend removing this fragment from the footnote to avoid confusion.
Section 188.8.131.52 specifies the cardinality of the businessEntity
list as 0 to infinity in the diagram, which disagrees with the text in
184.108.40.206 which says "Required repeating element containing one or more".
Clearly either the diagram or the text is wrong. I think the diagram should be
corrected, for consistency with the other APIs.
Section 220.127.116.11 third paragraph uses "different than", which is
grammatically incorrect - should be "different from".
Section 18.104.22.168 bullet points for E_invalidKeyPassed, E_unsupported, and
E_unvalidatable mention "should" which should be "SHOULD" for consistency with
the other bullets.
Section 22.214.171.124, first paragraph. "any empty uddiKey" should probably be
"an empty uddiKey", given that the is only one in the tModel under
consideration (the phrase is qualified with "If the new tModel...").
There are a number of places where the construct "publisher that" is
used. These really should be "publisher who" - I can call out all the
locations if required, but a global search/replace can do this equally