Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I agree with Doug: the original issue was about whether we should use the
term Respondant or Respondent. I flipped a coin when I made the suggestion
for Issue 7 to the group (should have checked the dictionary!) So, although
we voted on what it would be, the fact is that Respondant isn't a valid word
anyway and if I'd known about that at the time I'd have voted against my own
resolution :-0

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit


> Eric,
>
> On the other hand, spelling was all of the original issue.  I have
> updated the comments in Bugzilla[1] to describe the extent of the issue.
>
> As far as the process goes, I am getting rather lost here.  This type of
> problem will remain a rather minor, editorial issue until
> implementations force us to carefully consider the impact of the tiniest
> name change.  If it should not have been opened as an issue for the
> group to consider, fine and we should leave it closed but do the right
> thing (fix the spelling).  If this issue was worth the original
> consideration we gave it, I suggest reopening is the correct way forward.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> [1] http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7
>
> On 22-Jan-04 10:31, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
> > This seems like a spelling or usage fix to me, not necessary to repoen
the issue to fix it, unless there is some proposal to change more than the
name.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:23 AM
> > To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: Doug Bunting
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> >
> >
> > Are we going to re-open this issue?
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> > www.arjuna.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark  <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> Little
> > To: Greg Pavlik <mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
> > Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>  ;
ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> >
> > That depends what you mean by reviewing of port types. If you mean
checking them for English/US-English spelling then that's something that
could be done by running them through a spell-checker. I'm not going to
volunteer for that ;-) But it could be a single issue.
> >
> > If you mean a wholesale change to names, then that should be separate
issues, as each may need to be argued differently.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> > www.arjuna.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Greg  <mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com> Pavlik
> > To: Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com>
> > Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>  ;
ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> >
> > In this case, it's a typo fix to get the XML in a consumable state. Does
reviewing the names of port types fall under this or a separate issue? I
think this is something that might be helpful.
> >
> > Mark Little wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug, I'm happy to re-open the issue (which isn't actually closed yet
until
> >
> > I get the updates from Simeon). However, I presume it's down to the TC
to
> >
> > agree to re-open it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Doug Bunting"  "> <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
<Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
> >
> > To:  "> <mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
<ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:32 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Minutes Confcall January 19
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies for missing the call yesterday due to the holiday.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did the group agree to Mark's proposed resolution for issue 7 without
> >
> > modification?  That is, are we going with "Respondant"?  Agreement on
> >
> > this issue implies the group is not paying attention because
> >
> > "respondant" is not in the dictionaries I have checked, even as a
> >
> > British spelling.  "Respondent" seems to be the correct word though its
> >
> > meaning involves a legal nuance (being a defendant) irrelevant to our
> >
> >
> >
> > usage.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanx,
> >
> > doug
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20-Jan-04 07:01, Guy Pardon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Below are the meetings I recorded. Due to the interference on the line I
> >
> > am not sure if I got everything right.
> >
> > Please send your comments to me if you have any.
> >
> >
> >
> > Guy
> >
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Next item: issues resolution
> >
> > Martin: The only way to make progress is by going over issues and
> >
> > resolve them before moving on.
> >
> > Did everyone get a chance to read the issues? Silence. Any motions?
> >
> > Remark: In most cases they appear typos or editorial fixes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Motion to adopt them (issues 1-11) by Greg. Anybody seconding? Yes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Simeon.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any discussions? No. Objections? No. Motion approved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Simeon still has to do an update.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>