RE: [wsia] [wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec v0.5

[Thomas Schaeck <SCHAECK@de.ibm.com>]

We already have a separate document (the whitepaper I wrote from which the
introductionary material for the spec was taken). So what we might do is to
just provide a brief intro in the spec and then having a link in there that
points to the URL of the WSRP whitepaper at a prominent place.

Best regards,

Thomas



Eilon Reshef <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com> on 09/03/2002 05:01:57 PM

To:    "'Tamari, Yossi'" <yossi.tamari@sap.com>, "'wsia'"
       <"wsia%lists.oasis-open.org;_wsrp-interfaces"@lists.oasis-open.org>,
       wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:    RE: [wsia] [wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec v0.5




I would agree, and also regarding moving the parts that Rich has  mentioned
to a different document.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamari,  Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002  9:18 AM
To: wsia;  wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsia]  [wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec v0.5



I am not extremely familiar with these kinds of standard  documents, but it
seems to me the introductory part we have is too long.  Readers of this
document are expected to know what a portal, a portlet, and a  web service
are, and how they may work together.

The intended audience for the spec are the people who are  going to be
implementing the standard - writing producers or consumers  (containers).
What they are looking for is the technical detail, not the  screen
captures. I think for them just the sheer size of the document is
intimidating, and having

to find where the actual technical information resides is a  nuisance.
I think the introduction to portals, web  services, etc. should go in a
separate document. (white paper?)
I am referring to sections 1.1-1.4 mostly, since I wasn't  able to get much
farther yet...

        Yossi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich  Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:56 PM
To:  wsia
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec  v0.5


I agree, but noticed it had grown to this level just as I was  sending it
to
the mailing lists. I would suggest the  WSDL, use cases and UDDI (ie. use
of
standardized  registries) discussion be moved into separate files. The WSDL
because this would then become a reference to the actual files that  should
be referenced by Producers. The others because  while they do help
understanding, they are not  normative relative to the spec.

Any thoughts/comments?



                       Gil  Tayar

                       <Gil.Tayar@webcol         To:       Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS

                       lage.com>                 cc:

                                                Subject:  RE: [wsia]
[wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec  v0.5

                       09/01/2002  07:13

                       AM




Rich,

You _must_ split this document into three or more. Some of the  edits I
tried
to do resulted  in corrupt files. This is a sure sign in Word that a
document
is getting too big.

Gil

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich  Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Fri, August 30, 2002 20:19
To:  wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsia] [wsrp-interfaces] Draft spec v0.5


The doc file has now grown to 11MB ....

(See attached file: Draft Spec v0.5.ZIP)







----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the  subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the  subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>