[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Groups - AppnotesIssuesApril05_draft (DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89.doc) uploaded
Katy, some comments: Line 30: actually, it will be the new fault to be defined by the resolution to WSRF102 that should be returned if the operation would cause the RPDoc to no longer validate. Line 60: In order to query <add>attributes of resource properties</add> a WS-Resource client must... Lines 98/99: I would suggest re-wording as follows: "In order to ensure interoperability of WS-RF implementations, WS-RF applications should use a document-literal binding to serialize the messages defined by the WS-RF specifications. " (We shouldn't make any comment on application design outside the scope of how it supports WS-RF). Section 1.5.2: I'm not sure the example properly illustrates why we have the restriction on GEDs - there is no actual problem with the use of tns:Size as described - the <Size> child of <Blocks> is a part of the <Blocks> RP - it is not an RP in itself. And both <tns:Szie> and <tns:Blocks> are uniquely defined by qnames in this example. The problem would come if a new resource properties document needed to be specified that composed GenericDiskDriveProperties with another resource properties document in a new namespace. A GED allows an element to be easily mixed in without having to reproduce the type definition in the new namespace. Do we need section 1.5.3? Was there a specific issue that motivates this? Is there any reason to suppose a resource property document could not be extended in the normal fashion described by XML schema (as illustrated here)? Regards, Ian Robinson STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect IBM Hursley Lab, UK ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB To 21/04/2005 10:39 wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org cc Subject [wsrf] Groups - AppnotesIssuesApril05_draft (DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89. doc) uploaded This document contains proposed appnotes for issues 63,95, 22,52,89. Please review and send comments to the group. I will incorporate the notes into the appnotes document next week. Thanks Katy -- Ms Katy Warr The document named AppnotesIssuesApril05_draft (DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89.doc) has been submitted by Ms Katy Warr to the OASIS Web Services Resource Framework (WSRF) TC document repository. Document Description: Proposed resolution for the following appnotes: WSRF63: Which lifetime attributes (ala OGSI) should be specified for resource properties WSRF95: Rules for defining resource properties document WSRF22: QNames as attribute values or text nodes is problematic with signatures/encryption and intermediaries WSRF52: Delete will always fault if minOccurs > 0 WSRF89: Document-literal serialization View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/document.php?document_id=12346 Download Document: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/12346/DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89.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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]