wsdm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments
- From: "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
- To: "Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:04:23 -0800
Sorry, I missed that in the minutes since it didn't have a
"resolution" in front. I am now using that text.
Igor and I came up with an alternate
wording for the first one... can we use that?
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
"Vambenepe, William N"
<vbp@hp.com>
12/01/2004 11:05 PM
|
To
| Heather
Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1
Comments |
|
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]