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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:36:45 -0700
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E30E932@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Maryann Hondo" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
I definitely agree with group the same information in one place, which
also makes it easier to propose a change :-)
 
Cheers,
Dave


________________________________

	From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:42 AM
	To: David Orchard
	Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313
	
	

	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 16:37:07 GMT

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