RE: [uddi-spec] Yet more comments on v3.0.1

["Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>]

Title: Message

Pleased to see someone is reading the comments I make :-)

 

With regard to 10.5 - I cannot see what I was thinking when I read that sentence earlier. It makes sense on rereading it. Perhaps that's an indication that it can be misread? No matter - let it stand.

 

With region to the opening of section 11, I feel that it is important that we qualify the statement "...a set of tModels has been established for UDDI". Without qualification it reads as though this set is complete, and requires no addition, a sentiment that is the reverse of the truth.

 

Tony Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From: John Colgrave [mailto:colgrave@hursley.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue 26/08/2003 1:04
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Yet more comments on v3.0.1

I do not agree with either of these changes.

 

John Colgrave

IBM

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: 25 August 2003 08:03
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Yet more comments on v3.0.1

 

Section 10.5 Value sets with entiity keys as values

The third sentence should read: "They must be mapped as entity keys everywhere they are used." - removing "are" and "else".

 

Section 11, opening sentence reads a little oddly. Perhaps "a set of tModels" could be "a basic set of tModels"? Or even "a canonical set of tModels"?

 

Tony Rogers

tony.rogers@ca.com