RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

See <wv></wv>.

---

From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:49 AM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments

Here are some comments on MUWS Part 1 which might require some discussion.
I already sent a bunch of editorial/clarification on top of Mark Ellisons to William which are in the 1127 version of the document.

Section 2.1: I’m not sure I agree that the contract includes discoverability. Certainly the contract cannot be exercised if it can’t be discovered.  I think this just needs rewording. 

<wv>Replaced "discover" with "access"</wv> 

 
Section 2.1.1: There is some concern in IBM about confusing 'quality' here with the more general qos concept. Can we choose another word? 
 

<wv>I replaced "quality" with "aspect". Which of course means that someone else is going to have a problem with that word... :-)</wv>

 
Section 4.1: I think we should RECOMMEND  ReportTime too. 
 

<wv>Done.</wv>

 
Section 5.1.2: Section ResourceId Consitency - I think this is a MUST 
 

<wv>Done (I assume you meant this for the "consistency within an endpoint" section)</wv>

 
Section 6: Should we add a WS-I compliance requirement as a MUST or SHOULD? 
 

<wv>Left it as a should because I think I remember there was a problem with WSRF not being WS-I compliant.</wv>

 
Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572