RE: [wsdm] RE: DeviceState Taxonomy

Thanks for setting the point straight. All the state taxonomies in the primer, for the PDA and for the Printer are correct.

Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development

Office of the CTO

802 765-4337

-----Original Message-----
From: Murray, Bryan P. [mailto:bryan.murray@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 6:29 PM
To: Wilson, Kirk D; Heather Kreger
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] RE: DeviceState Taxonomy

Kirk,

The State capability is just a pattern for actual capabilities to be extended from state for specific resources. State does not define any proeprties or operations - it only defines types which must be used by capabilities extended from State. As such, the property name used in an extended State is not specified by MUWS. This means DeviceState in the primer is of type StateType, but it does not need to have the name State or to be a child of a State element.

I agree that the example in 3.2.4.1 is confusing. Heather we should add an action item to fix this in the spec.

Bryan

From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:28 AM
To: Wilson, Kirk D; Heather Kreger
Cc: Murray, Bryan P.
Subject: RE: DeviceState Taxonomy

Question RE the DeviceState. The RP instance doc contains the <pda:DeviceState> (which, as I commented below) you need to define in the RPDoc schema). My question is, should this element be enclosed in a <muws2:State> element. I find the spec somewhat ambiguous on this point. As it stands, the instance doc reports a capability, MUWS2 State, but there is no property that could be retrieved or queried against this capability (even though there is a GED State defined in the schema).

I guess the short answer is, “Not unless the DeviceState element is defined as a child of <State> in the schema.” Thus, the question is, Should it be? As I say, the spec is vague—the example in 3.2.41 of MUWS2 would almost seem to imply that it should. Any thoughts or clarifications?

On a related topic, in 2.6 (in both v. 12 and v. 12.hk), a grammatical point (maybe Mark Ellison also pick this up): in the second set of numbered bullets, bullets 2 & 3, “like you would” should be “as you would”. (“Like” takes an object, “as” takes a verb phrase.)

Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development

Office of the CTO

802 765-4337

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Kirk D
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:12 PM
To: Heather Kreger
Cc: Bryan Murray (bryan.murray@hp.com)
Subject: DeviceState Taxonomy

Heather,

I reviewed your XML for defining the DeviceState. It looks good, but you should have an element:

<xs:element name=DeviceState type=”pda:DeviceStateType” />

Also, I would recommend adding a reference to sect. 6.1 before you present the schema, e.g., “Here is an example of how you would that for DeviceState (see sect. 6.1 for further information on how this taxonomy is defined).” Something like that.

Finally, your state chart really should have the initial state, a big black dot and termination state, a black dot with a circle around it, represented. The initial state should probably go into the OFF state and the termination state exit from the OFF state. Just to make it look like “official” UML J.

Kirk Wilson
Computer Associates

Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
Tele: + 1 802 765-4337
Fax: + 1 802 765-4339
<mailto:kirk.wilson@ca.com>

wsdm message