W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:41:44 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD576CCC6.9ADC18AD-ON872572F9.0040154A-852572F9.003FFF59@us.ibm.com>
Dave,
I'm totally open to other alternatives.
I just tried to reuse what seemed to be a "common" term. My main goal was 
to group the same information in one place
rather than having it sprinkled throughout.

Maryann



"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
06/12/2007 11:32 PM

To
Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313






I think I'm ok with most of the changes, but I have a lot of heartburn 
over the issue of "XML Outlines" AI 305 and tying WS-Policy to them.  I 
think we should say something more generic like a human readable and 
machine processable description.  I don't see any customers doing custom 
assertions using "XML Outlines", that's only geeks like us in the WS-* 
groups.
 
But I think it me to propose something.  I'll bring it up on the policy wg 
call somewhere.
 
Cheers,
Dave

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:30 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313


All, 

I've had several AI's for the Guidelines document, and I have created a 
strawman for addressing them. 
I've created a diff doc against the latest version of the Guidelines 
document to address the following: 

AI 286 - There has been an ongoing action to deal with the Guidelines 
document with regard to things we 
have learned from the WS-Addressing groups efforts to create new 
assertions. 
 
        Monica had floated several proposals dealing with context and 
vocabulary. 
        I tried to incorporate this input into the sections 5.4.2 "Nested 
Assertions" and Section 8 "Designing Assertions". 
        I may not have captured all the text, but I thought I'd tee this 
up for discussion 

AI 303 - propose "bumper sticker text" 

        This one came up at the F2F where we were discussing changes to BP 
7. 

        This may seem like a radical change, but when I looked at the 
table of Best Practices, I couldn't really relate 
        to this list.  It seemed very inconsistent in its "guidance".  I 
looked at other BP docs at the W3C and used the 
        I18N one as an example. 

        I took the model of having each item  be 
                "Best Practice # - <statement> " 
        I think its now more of a clear "should" or "action" statement ( 
but am always open to friendly amendments) 

AI 305- Generalize Best Practice for XML outline 

        I moved a bunch of things around trying to "group" all the best 
practices that deal with the XML outline section 
        and I included an example from the Reliable exchange document. 

        In doing this I also restructured the "ignorable" and "optional" 
sections to remove the "general guidance" on 
        defining the attributes ( since this is now in the "general" 
section) and tried to add text to make the sections 
        be more in parallel. 

AI 313 - Bug 3978---- Section 7 

        I still think the Best Practices text in this section should be 
included.  But I think it was in the wrong place. 
        So I propose moving it to Section  5.7 and propose rewording this 
to be Best Practices for Policy Attachment. 
        Then have a "general" section, and then have a section for "WSDL" 
specific Best practices. 


Maryann 
 
 
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:39:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:52 GMT