OK, please let me continue the email I
started below now that I’ve had more time to think about it. I know
think that the changes to the spec would be rather major and, indeed, we have
already discussed putting them off for a future release of MOWS. We haven’t
extended the handling of operations with regard to their state as we have
extended operational status
and metrics to operations. We haven’t defined an operation
operational state
capability.
The statement in the text is just about
extending the Operational State model, which is still at the level of the service. To have
an operation operational state model would, I believe, require defining a new
operation operational state capability, which we did put off for a future
release. If and when we do have such a capability, we would then begin by
replicating the current (service-level) operational state model and create an
operation operational state model that could be independently extended.
I believe I’m right about this. Anyone
else have other any other thoughts?
Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
603 823-7146
-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Kirk D
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
4:49 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups -
Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial version) (wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) uploaded
If I understand what is
needed, then it is simply a matter of copying and pasting the entire
OperationalState model in the XM Schema and changing
“OperationalState” to
“OperationalOperationState”. I haven’t look deeply if
into whether there needs to be other changes, but they would be pretty much of
the same variety.
There would also have to
be a minor to the spec to make sure the Operation
Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
603 823-7146
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Kreger
[mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
11:21 AM
To: Wilson, Kirk D
Cc: David E Cox;
wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups -
Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial version) (wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) uploaded
HI, Thanks for posting the CD candidate, I'll open the ballot
How
big is this change? Given where we are, unless this is going to make it
hard to use MOWS, I wouldn't mind moving to next rev.
The
comment for Dave's issue is in the text, vote as if it weren't there.
All
other changes approved by the TC on 2/23 have been made. Thanks!
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
"Wilson, Kirk D"
<Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
02/23/2006
02:02 PM
|
To
|
David E Cox/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
|
<wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
RE: [wsdm] Groups - Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial
version) (wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) uploaded
|
|
David, I agree with your point RE lines 834-863
and have made the change.
ALL, I think David asks a good question regarding lines
865-868. The question is whether the state model for operations can be
extended independently of the state for services. Currently there is only
one OperationalState model in the MOWS schema, therefore, at the current time,
the models cannot be extended independently since they are the same model.
But I don’t think we need to make any statement to that affect in
the spec. (If anyone wanted to have independent service and operational
models for some reason, they pretty soon discover they can’t. Are
there any convincing reasons why one would want separate models? At this
point I’d say including an OperationalOperationState model is a
“2.0” enhancement.) Thanks for raising the question, Dave.
David, by the time I fixed your second point and added the
new metadata on units, line 1012 was no longer at position 1012. Can you
copy and paste the line so I can see what you are pointing to.
Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
603 823-7146
-----Original
Message-----
From: David E Cox [mailto:decox@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:08 PM
To: Wilson, Kirk D
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Groups - Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial version)
(wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) uploaded
Hi Kirk,
A couple of relatively minor comments:
line 803 - "this" should be "the"
lines 834-863 - should we specify "web services endpoint operation"
rather than just "web services endpoint" in each of these state
descriptions? I know we said in the introductory paragraph above that
they apply at the operation level, but someone might read these and be confused
about whether they apply the the whole service or just that operation.
lines 865-868 - if someone extends the state model at the operational level,
are they required to make the same extension at the MOWS level for the service
as a whole or the MUWS level? I assume not, but just want to make sure
we've thought about it.
line 1012 - the , should be a ;
Regards,
David E Cox
kirk.wilson@ca.com
02/23/2006
09:54 AM
|
To
|
wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[wsdm] Groups - Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial version)
(wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) uploaded
|
|
This is the candidate MOWS 1.1 for committee draft. A number of
corrections are included as discovered by myself and Heather.
One thing that is missing, pending the discussion in a couple of hours, is
the units on metrics.
-- Kirk Wilson
The document named Candidate CD MOWS 1.1 (initial version)
(wsdm-mows-cd_9[1].0.doc) has been submitted by Kirk Wilson to the OASIS
Web Services Distributed Management (WSDM) TC document repository.
Document Description:
View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/document.php?document_id=16865
Download Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/download.php/16865/wsdm-mows-cd_9%5B1%5D.0.doc
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
application
may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and
paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open Administration