RE: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification

["Green, Alastair J." <Alastair.Green@choreology.com>]

No, that's a mishearing or a misunderstanding. 

It was tabled without objection, i.e. deferred for consideration at the
next meeting. 

I asked if there was a way of untabling it for an e-vote before the F2F,
if the e-discussion got far enough to make things clear, and Martin felt
not. 

I was trying to answer your concern about delay, while allowing time for
the extra consideration to take place.

So, I am still making arguments for my tabled motion, and hoping others
will chip in to put me right, or support me, or amend my proposal.
Hopefully this will allow a rapid resolution right at the start of the
F2F.

Alastair



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
Sent: 23 June 2005 15:48
To: Green, Alastair J.
Cc: Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification

I haven't seen the minutes from Monday's call yet, but I thought the 
motion was withdrawn pending further discussion. I seem to recall you 
saying you wanted to "un-table" it (my phrase).

Mark.


Green, Alastair J. wrote:

>We do have a proposal, which is my motion from the last meeting, which
>has been tabled. It was, to paraphrase: to have an optional
>WS-Context-defined context-identifying attribute whose value is a URI. 
>
>I moved to table (U.S. English sense) on the grounds that Greg believed
>(and Kevin disbelieved) that this feature was possible to achieve
>through existing facilities (attribute extension, if I understood
>correctly), and that therefore my proposal was moot, unnecessary,
>redundant etc.
>
>On subsequent reflection, I'm not sure that the issue is
XML-mechanical.
>
>The proposal to have a value which is opaque is important in this
>proposal. According to me, there are two ways you can do this. All the
>parties in a particular contractually-governed interaction can agree
>that a header element attribute of name N, value type TV means: treat
as
>a context, or you can write that kind of convention down once in a
>single standard specification, and decide what the value of N and TV
are
>within the standard spec's namespace etc. 
>
>Contract or statute, if you like. 
>
>However, I am not an expert in the mechanics of XML, and I've learnt
>that those who are can throw a different light on these kinds of
>statements or assumptions by non-experts like me. 
>
>So I am waiting for someone who is a mechanical expert to say: "that's
a
>wrong-headed way of posing the problem", or "OK, you are right to pose
>the problem in that way: implementation choices do not contradict or
>alter the overall approach being considered".
>
>If the experts say the latter, then I think the statutory approach is
>preferable, which is my motion as it stands. 
>
>This will give Kevin's customers the opportunity to build what he
wants,
>will give Peter's customers the opportunity to build what he wants,
will
>give the sceptics the opportunity to do nothing, and will clear the
>issue off the table.
>
>Procedurally: if the mechanical experts will speak, then once we have
>listened to them we can either vote the tabled motion up or down at the
>F2F, or we can have amendments etc to make counterproposals.
>
>Alastair
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
>Sent: 23 June 2005 15:09
>To: Newcomer, Eric
>Cc: ws-caf
>Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification
>
>I don't think so at the moment, but I'd like to think we could be by
the
>
>end of the week if we put our heads together and really drive this as a

>priority.
>
>Mark.
>
>
>Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Are we at the point at which we have one or more concrete proposals we
>>can vote on?
>>
>>Eric
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
>>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:36 AM
>>To: 'ws-caf'
>>Subject: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification
>>
>>I'm conscious that there has been very little follow up on the only 
>>outstanding issue we have against WS-Context: whether or not (and 
>>potentially how) we can identify an element within a SOAP header as a 
>>context. I'd like to encourage people to discuss this via email before

>>the face-to-face next week so we can close this issue down quickly and

>>move on to the WS-ACID specification.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Mark.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>