[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-1.0-20040929.doc uploaded
1. What is that "Caption" thing in Identity capability? Why not "Label" or
something. Caption does not sound right. Actually, "DescriptiveName" or
"Title" sounds better.
2. In 5.1.2, I don't think I agree with <Type>muws-xs:Category</Type>.
I believe the original document was much more specific on that and it was
good. I'd prefer to see the text from the original well discussed document to be
moved into MUWS without reduction.
3. In section 5.1: it has to be reconciled with mrel-** namespace.
Originally all the data types/operations/propetties were part of mrel-**
namespace, now when it was moved they seem to belong to muws-** namespace.
Either prefix all properly or fix the examples. I guess I'd prefer a separate
namespace for all the relationship related elements.
4. In 5.1.2 it says [MUWS defines the following data type to represent an instance
of a relationship.] That ain't not a data type. That is an element.
It was NEVER meant to be a data type. Actually there may not be any complex
type declared for that. This has to be reconciled.
5. In 5.1.4 it says [The actual markup of the
value of this element is described in section 5.1.2.
6. In 5.1.4 it says [This
element has the same constraint as the relationship property in section
5.1.3
with the addition of having to be of the one of the types specified in the
request message.] What constraint?
7. In 5.1.5 [<Relationship>muws-xs:RelationshipType</Relationship>].
That isn't right. It should be [<Relationship/>].
Again, it would be better to move the discussed text from the original document
and then talk about modifications.
8.
In 5.2 [The
endpoint reference contained in the Relationship/AccessEndpoint sub-element of
the relationshipType complex
type] Why type? There is an element declared there,
Relationship/AccessEndpoint IS NOT a sub-element of anything! I think that whole
sentence is not needed.
9. 5.3.1 [<Type>muws-xs:Category
</Type>] Don't like that.
10. 5.3.1 [It
appears at least twice (one per participant in the relationship).] That
is not needed. 1) it follows from schema 2) at that particular place it
describes what Participant is not how it appears in a property
document.
In general it would have been reasonable to copy the original text, accept
the change and then make corrections. It is very hard to pick the differences
from memory while reading the current document.
Otherwise, the document looks much better. Great job, William!
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]