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