RE: [wsdm] [muws] comments on MUWS spec

["Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>]

William,

I am not necessarily opposed to using Qnames and XSD to define
attributes, I just want to make sure that we find the right balance
between complexity and functionality. It seems that we are really
talking about is a how to implement a "WSDM MIB". Qnames are only
required if XSD is the WSDM MIB notation.

The question I have is XSD the best approach to define a WSDM MIB? I am
not opposed to that, but I am not convinced yet either.

Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
 
Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software.
Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to
www.opennetwork.com/eval.
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:31 PM
To: John Fuller
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] [muws] comments on MUWS spec



> to clarify, the idea was that
> 
>   <xsd:pattern value="unavailable.?\c*"/> (corrected)
> 
> would allow the substate
> 
> unavailable.transporterror.oraclespecifictransporterror

Who would define "transporterror"?

All I am trying to do, is allow someone (not necessarily the base spec)
to define "transporterror" in their namespace and someone else to define
a substate of "transporterror" (like "oraclespecifictransporterror") and
express it.

William


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.