The subject says it all... please take a look at this email and PIM
WD03.
We should plan on discussing these issues at the 15 February
meeting.
Thanks!
bill
--
William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax
On 2/1/13 12:36 PM, William Cox wrote:
I posted WD03 of the WS-Calendar PIM last night. PDF public link
is https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/48102/ws-calendar-pim-v1.0-wd03.pdf
; DOCX public link (for your detailed suggestions and corrections
:-) is https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/48101/ws-calendar-pim-v1.0-wd03.docx
.
There are a number of areas that can use improvement as we head
toward public review. References are to line and page numbers in
the PDF at the URI above.
In summary they are:
(1) Ensure that only necessary components are in the model
(2) Align model component names to those in WS-Calendar
(3) Ensure that there's a clear naming convention (see Setion 1.5,
line 46)
(4) Eliminate remaining XSD influences (e.g. "anyURI" in LinkType
- see lines 276-283)
(5) Write more clearly on the nature of WS-Calendar wrt
parameters, properties, and value types (Section 5 line 350ff)
(6) Clarify the unbound state and how that reflects in the UML
model (see e.g. section 2.6 and 3.6.1)
(7) Consider ToleranceValueType and the apparent circularity with
respect to DurationValueType (section 3.9)
(8) Availability and Vavailability -- what is needed in the PIM?
Should this be deferred until completion of Vavailability so that
the abstraction doesn't need to change? Suggestions?
(9) Conformance (Section 6 line 363ff): the changes aren't
visible, but are minor and the same as the previous draft.
(10) Thoughts on other elements of Intervals, line 452ff - not
sure how relevant these conformance requirements are; partitions
seem to be moving toward a streams representation in part, and the
other elements (Description, Summary, Priority) aren't in the PIM.
Should they be?
(11) Improved text for section 3.4 (line 188ff) on primitive
types. Are the references and description right?
(12) Comments on all other YELLOW highlighted text
Of course, any other suggestions to improve clarity, focus, and
usability are welcome.
Thanks!
bill
|