W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2006

RE: Guidelines Document

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:04:31 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165027DA55B@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Oct 25, 2006 8:57 AM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Guidelines Document 
> 
> Umit
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> 
> I noticed that the following comments were not addressed (the others  
> were), thus I think some more changes might be needed.
> 
> Comments on Content
> 
> 1) Add wsp:Policy elements to Example 8.4 CompanyAProfileB (fully  
> expanded), and also example 8.6
> - wsp:Policy element required as child of sp:TransportBinding and  
> parent of sp:TransportToken, since sp:TransportToken is an assertion.

I added wsp:Policy elements, it appears not all the examples were
updated. I will do a new pass. 

> 
> 4) Add guidance as to when and why to use parameters versus nested  
> assertions. I think it would make the document flow better and be  
> clearer if section 5.4 "Assertions with Parameters" were to be  
> combined with 5.5 "Comparison of Nested and Parametrized Assertions"  
> and placed before 5.3 "Nested Assertions". This could answer the  
> question of when to use parameters versus  nested assertions before  
> getting into the details of nested assertions.
> 

You are right. We are still planning to do that. 

> 5) Add description and guidance related to policy and SOAP  
> intermediary processing, before section 5.6 Self Describing Messages

This one is new, I think. I am not sure what kind of guidance to add.
Perhaps you would like to suggest some text. 

> 
> Editorial comments
> 
> 2) Pretty-print (indent) all xml for readability

This was handled on the first checked in version. I think we may be
losing this due to using different XML tools as two of us are working on
it. I will ask other editors how they resolve this problem. Maybe there
is a step in the Eclipse environment that will help. 

> 8) 2.1.3 s/can reflect its on the wire/can specify its on-the-wire/
> 15) 5.4 1st bullet
> 
> s/which can not/that cannot/

Ok. 

> 
> 16) 5.6
> put last paragraph first removing "REWRITEAs a result,". This last  
> paragraph is the main concept. Tighten earlier material.

I introduced tightening by adding a separate paragraph afterwards.
Moving the paragraph did not work very well, but we can look at it again
if you think this is really critical. 


> 
> (i.e, this is first:
> As a result, Policy assertions should not be used to express the  
> semantics of a message. If a property is required to understand a  
> message, it should be communicated in the message, or be made  
> available by some other means(e.g., being referenced by a URI in the  
> message) rather than communicated as a policy element.)
> 
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:57 PM, ext Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > Please find the first version of the guidelines document in 
> [1] and  
> > send comments/issues.
> >
> > Frederick, would you verify the comments you have raised has been  
> > adressed to your satisfaction.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --umit
> >
> > [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy- 
> > guidelines.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
> > Architect
> > NetWeaver Industry Standards
> > SAP Labs, LLC
> > Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095
> > SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238
> >
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 16:10:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT