Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions

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

Mark, et al, thanks for the reply. I wanted to comment on a few of your 
comments (and try to get a group consensus).

comment1: you want the deleted text to be restored. I removed it because 
it is word-for-word redundant to the abstract. I will try to cut and 
paste the statement on scoping work up toward the activity description, 
which will mean that only one sentence is repeated. I'd like to 
carefully review the abstract when we have things done.

comment3: I don't know that we need them; I didn't change the structure 
except to add the deref element. What's the consensus?

comment4: I will double check with Simeon today about the positioning of 
the any element.

comment5: the rationalizations for nesting were not to resolve an issue, 
they were to address concerns raised by Peter and Alastair about nesting 
in general -- and were included in the model description exercise. We 
agreed in New Orleans to remove this text from the spec, but to add it 
to either the FAQ or the primer.

Greg

> Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Comments inline.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
>> To: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
>> Cc: "ws-caf-editors" <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:00 PM
>> Subject: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>