Re: Latest revisions

[Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>]

Attached.

Greg Pavlik wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> I have gone through to resolve my open issues and also to attempt to 
> tidy up the spec by flagging redundancy and content we agreed to 
> remove at the F2F (for example, the rationalizations for nesting 
> belong in an FAQ or the Primer).
>
> Please read this revision and check to make sure you agree with the 
> changes I have made. I have modified the context structure and added 
> text on both addressing/service references and on getting the value of 
> a context that is passed by reference. Make sure that you agree with 
> what is in there.
>
> However, I have some action items for you all:
>
> 1) Eric, Mark: please make you agree with the defintion(s) of 
> activities. Make sure that all explanations of activities are 
> consistent with reference to the execution environment and contexts.
> 2) Eric, Mark: Please look for redundancy: it's annoying and it makes 
> the spec ultimately harder to read and maintain. I tried to eliminate 
> things that I thought were repetitive and unhelpful, let's talk before 
> we undo the deletes.
> 3) Simeon: I have made several changes to the schemas and XML 
> instances -- the changes aren't hard to find -- they need a) to be 
> backported to the real schema/wsdl that you maintain and b) validated. 
> Note that the SOAP example is currently incorrect, as the proper 
> namespaces are not imported. Also, let's revist whether we actually 
> need the "generic" service-ref element. I'm starting to think not.
> 4) Speaking of namespaces, we no longer have a section that says what 
> namespace prefixes refer to. Is this an oversight? Let's give this one 
> to Mark.
> 5) Mark, can you just remove the getContents method from ContextService?
> 6) What exactly is returned when a URL in a pass-by-reference context 
> is dereferenced? An XML document that contains the context structure 
> as understood by the issuing authority? We should spell this out; if I 
> recall, the ContextManager responds with a requested-context message.
> 7) Does anyone have an action to map the request-reply messages into a 
> (normative) table as per Peter's F2F request? This is actually 
> important as it allows us to avoid by normative rules requirements in 
> the callback pattern when using WS-MD.
>
> By what date are we shooting for a new draft spec?
>

WSCTX_05-20-2004.doc