[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech notes in2.0 spec draft?
Yes, I think the only addition we need is to add a new V2 WSDL Binding
tModel and add allow the Producer add a new Binding Template referring to
that tModel.
That way the Producer can indicate to support V2 (probably besides V1).
Additionally we can discuss how to enhance the model and propagate the
features. Categorization seems to fit here well.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
"Andre Kramer"
<andre.kramer@eu.
citrix.com> To
"Rich Thompson"
07/08/2005 10:57 <richt2@us.ibm.com>,
AM <wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI,
ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech
notes in 2.0 spec draft?
My preference would be to make use of the built in forward compatibility to
use the existing tech notes with the new spec by just following the
versioning patterns used in naming (1_0 change to 2_0 tModels etc). Then to
re-visit broadening or enhancing publish / find / bind support for new 2.0
features (e.g. events, resources etc) for a “v2” of the tech notes.
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 July 2005 21:39
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech
notes in 2.0 spec draft?
These have been held up pending an update to the OASIS artifact naming
guidelines as these impact URNs. Hopefully we will be able to move forward
in the next month or so, but it does raise an interesting question about
when the work to update these to v2 should start. Hopefully we can
publicize the v1 versions while v2 is going through the standardization
process. It would be nice to release the v2 versions quite close to the
approval of v2 as a standard.
Rich
"Andre Kramer"
<andre.kramer@eu.citrix.co
m>
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
07/07/05 12:18 PM cc
<wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
[wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI,
ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech
notes in 2.0 spec draft?
Since we did not exactly over achieve publicising the registry tech notes
via the OASIS Web pages, should we add references to the tech notes and
state that it’s backwards compatible (or the tech notes are forward
compatible if one prefers)? What do you think?
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 July 2005 21:39
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech
notes in 2.0 spec draft?
These have been held up pending an update to the OASIS artifact naming
guidelines as these impact URNs. Hopefully we will be able to move forward
in the next month or so, but it does raise an interesting question about
when the work to update these to v2 should start. Hopefully we can
publicize the v1 versions while v2 is going through the standardization
process. It would be nice to release the v2 versions quite close to the
approval of v2 as a standard.
Rich
"Andre Kramer"
<andre.kramer@eu.citrix.co
m>
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
07/07/05 12:18 PM cc
<wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
[wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI,
ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech
notes in 2.0 spec draft?
Since we did not exactly over achieve publicising the registry tech notes
via the OASIS Web pages, should we add references to the tech notes and
state that it’s backwards compatible (or the tech notes are forward
compatible if one prefers)? What do you think?
Regards,
Andre
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]