Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

["iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

My comments are inline:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>
To: "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "WSRM (E-mail)" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93


> Jacques Durand wrote:
>
> > Tom:
> > inline
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:05 AM
> > To: Jacques Durand
> > Cc: WSRM (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93
> >
> >
> > Jacques Durand wrote:
> >
> > > Here is my suggested edits for spec 0.93, covering Sections 1 and 2.
> > > -Jacques
> > >
> > > 1.--------------------------
> > > Section 1.6: "Examples of Messages..."
> > > This section should appear much further in the doc
> > > after the protocol elements have been described in detail.
> > > No reader will expect to see these examples here, or to understand
them
> > > that early...
> > >
> > How about at the end of section 3?
> >
> > <JD> yes .

<iwasa>
If I were a reader of the spec, I like to see the example
message first. It makes me imagine the function and packaging
roughly in a minute.
Then reading text to understand for capability and detail.
It is time effective way to know a spec, and you can imagine
overview of the message when you read each section.
So I like to show the example very first.

However if I were a minor reader, I am fine to move
the example to anywhere else for most of reader feel
comfortable.
</iwasa>


> >
> > > 2.--------------------------
> > >
> > > Section 1.
> > > (from Tue 3 meeting minutes)
> > > RM Capability Text not yet put in the spec.
> > >
> > I thought we agreed to wait until resolution of wsdl annotation before
> > adding the capability section.
> >
> > <JD> OK, but was I mislead by minutes of Tue 3 meeting?

<iwasa>
My understanding was same with Tom.

Thanks,

Iwasa
</iwasa>

> >
> > > 3.--------------------------
> > >
> > > Section 2.1: "Overview of Messaging Model"
> > > Propose to replace the subsection titles (e.g. "Request/Response
> > > Messaging Model")
> > > with "Request/Response Signaling Pattern", because Messaging Model
> > > designates the
> > > whole set of the three types of signaling described here (reusing the
> > > term
> > > Messaging model to name parts of the "Messaging Model" is confusing.
> > > Or we should at least title "Messaging Models". But I think "Model"
> > > should be
> > > the whole set.).
> > >
> > Signaling pattern is a new term which would need to be defined.,  I
> > prefer the plural  "models".  Signalling connotes telecom mechanisms,
> > like ss7 to me.
> >
> > <JD> that would at least be more consistent. I would still contend
> > that "signaling" is also used in messaging (e.g. Rosettanet).
> >
> > > Propose also to replace:
> > > "There are three ways to send back Acknowledgment message or Fault
> > > message as
> > > described as follows:"
> > > with:
> > > "There are three ways to do signaling, i.e. send back an
> > > Acknowledgment message or
> > > a Fault message. They are called here "signaling patterns""
> > > As well as at other places in this section.
> > >
> > We already have the term Reply pattern.  Are you suggesting to change
> > the name to signalling pattern?
> >
> > <JD> no, not at all. But now that you mention it, it seems to me that
> > these "Messaging Models" are nothing else than our "Reply Patterns"...
> >
> I think this terminology is good.  Perhaps we should defer the name
> change until after the TC review.
>
> >
> > So shouldn't we use in fact "Messaging Reply Pattern" (English expr,
> > not the element name ReplyPattern) to designate each of the three
models,
> >  in this Messaging Model section (instead of my Signaling Patterns)?
> > At the very least the current spec is guilty of not explicitly
> > refering to each
> > of these "messaging models" when introducing the reply patterns.
> >
> > Jacques
> >
>
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>