Ok, so there will be no change until Peter's issue is voted on. I will
try to address all other comments and resend the text today. Please,
however, remember that we all need to do a very careful end-to-end
review. I just found a bug that I am going to fix wrt to deref and the
context identifier.
Greg
Mark Little wrote:
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?
Peter has raised an issue so we should probably discuss this on the list.
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.
OK, my memory needs augmentation ;-)
Mark.
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?
|