OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf-editors message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

I think if it's not normative it should be ok
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:02 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions

can we refer to ws-addressing in the spec? This has always been unclear to me.

Newcomer, Eric wrote:
Greg - I seem to have misunderstood the use of WS-MD in the spec.  My concern was over requireing it as part of the normative material.  Its use as an example is fine, and it would be good to also show an example of WS-Addressing - I will see if I can do that.

Anyway, apologies about raising an issue on a misunderstanding.


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:49 AM
To: Greg Pavlik
Cc: Newcomer, Eric; Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions

Eric, I reviewed all your comments. They seem reasonable to me, but I'd 
like to talk about the addressing issue, since we need to be able to 
say/show something about how the ws reference model works. Does anyone 
have a proposal on how we can do this without using some example that 
relies on an addressing spec of some kind? The example that is in the 
text is normative only with respect to the open content model -- there 
is no normative statement as to what addressing scheme is used. Is this OK?

Also, bear in mind that if WS-Addressing goes to the W3C in September 
(and assuming the community converges on the work in the W3C) we can 
always change the spec to reflect this development. Is that 
satisfactory? The important point in my mind is that we need to nail 
down the specification of the open content model in the near term so we 
can move forward.

Also -- and perhaps most important -- do you have a time frame in which 
you can integrate your changes?


Greg Pavlik wrote:

Eric, please go ahead and make the changes. I agree on MD, but that 
leaves us with the sticky problem as to how to explain the reference 
mechanism without using anything as an example....

Newcomer, Eric wrote:

I finally finished typing in the comments to Greg's draft.  I have 
not yet reviewed Mark's comments but I will do that next.

Maybe I should take a stab at incorporating some of the comments, 
especially the structural one.  I am proposing the organize the spec 
more around the activity concept:

1) Define activity as an execution environment for which context 
needs to be created and managed
2) Define the context data structure to be used
3) Define the context management service that (optionally?) 
supplements the context management capabilities of the Web services 
in the activity

Also I do not think we can yet incorporate WS-MD, especially since 
IBM, BEA, and Microsoft have all publicly stated their intention to 
submit WS-Addressing to W3C in September.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:37 AM
To: Greg Pavlik
Cc: ws-caf-editors
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions

Comments inline.


----- 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



Greg Pavlik wrote:



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 
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?




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]