RE: [ws-rx-editors] RDDL rough draft

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

Title: RDDL rough draft

A few comments and questions.

 

1.) We need to decide if this document should refer to the state and location of documents as they exist now or as they will exist when the TC has completed its work (or some other time (e.g. when we go to CS)). For example, should we say that the WS-RM specification is found at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15789/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.pdf or http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510/ws-rm-1.1-spec.pdf ?

 

2.) RDDL documents are supposed to describe namespaces. We have two namespaces that need to be described: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510 and http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200510. Should we use the same RDDL document to describe both namespaces or should we use separate documents? If the former, do we try and set up some kind of linking or re-direction so that we only have one copy of the document or should we just maintain two copies?

 

Attached is another version with some changes from Steve's. I've made the document self-referential in case someone comes upon it via some other path than de-referencing the namespace URIs.

 

- g

---

From: Winkler, Steve [mailto:steve.winkler@sap.com]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:21 PM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RDDL rough draft

Hi editors,

I talked with Gil today and agreed to take a first stab at the RDDL doc.  We figured it would be best to ultimately split out the schema, examples, and wsdl from the appendix and put them into separate files.  We also determined that the TC will scream if we do this without asking them first, so in the first step I've created a very simple RDDL doc that simply points to the wsrm and wsrmp pdfs we have.  This was my first attempt with RDDL though, so I thought I would shop it here first before sending it to the TC.  Suggestions, comments, etc welcome. 

There appear to be two versions of RDDL, and I based my doc on RDDL 2.0 [1], specifically the examples in section 3.2 of the W3C's Resources and Namespaces doc [2], as well as following the instructions for natures [3] and purposes [4].

I feel that this should suffice for the time being, but we will want to update it with the various files we will create from the appendix (upon TC approval), and potentially even include older versions or diffs of the draft here.  Just a thought.  Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Steve

[1] http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[3] http://www.rddl.org/natures/
[4] http://www.rddl.org/purposes/
 

<<wsrx-rddl.html>>

Title: Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)

Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)

December 2006

Introduction

This document is a describes versions 1.1 of the WS-ReliableMessaging and WS-RM Policy namespaces.

WS-ReliableMessaging Core Specification

WS-ReliableMessaging Policy Specification