OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments


Sorry, I missed that in the minutes since it didn't have a "resolution" in front. I am now using that text.


From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:51 PM
To: Vambenepe, William N
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] MUWS Part 1 Comments


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]