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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

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


Subject: comments on the demo documents


Here are a few comments on the demo documents Kevin sent round at the 
start of August.

WS-Context demo document:

In the overview, I'd change "WS-CAF context" to "WS-Context context" and 
include a reference.

Can you also turn consecutive line numbering on? Currently the line 
numbers get reset at the start of each major section.

It would be good to call out explicitly at the start which optional 
aspects of WS-Context the demo uses and which is doesn't (maybe section 
5, since it touches on a few of these things) . Although mandatory items 
can be assumed to be implemented (they're mandatory after all), 
something clear and concise about the optional functionality would help.

In section 6, change "Retailer Service provides" to "Retailer Service 
provider"?

I'd suggest using the same terminology and style as the WS-CAF 
specifications where possible. So, /must/ would be MUST, for example. 
Also, bold schema use within the text and make sure it's clear which 
namespace. For example, *wsctx:foo*

Have you and the group considered adding some normative scenario 
interactions, so that implementers can more easily test for 
interoperability and compliance?

WS-CF demo document (I'll ignore similar comments to WS-Context demo 
document):

In the abstract, I'd just talk about WS-Coordination Framework contexts 
and not WS-CAF Coordination Framework contexts. It should be clear to 
readers that WS-CF (and WS-Context) are part of the WS-CAF TC. There'll 
never be a WS-CAF specification.

Is the intention that this document should stand entirely on its own? If 
so, then section 3 makes sense. If not, then we may be able to trim some 
stuff here and simply reference the WS-Context demo document. Either 
way, it would be good to have a section at the start on what the 
differences are in the architecture/requirements/etc between the two 
demos. For example, how is coordination being used and what's the protocol?

BTW, my preference would be to reference the previous document and keep 
this one as simple as possible.

The text in section 6 seems incomplete. No chapter numbers for example.

Mark.

-- 
Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
(www.arjuna.com)


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