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

RE: questions needing vic^^^volunteers

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:58:54 -0700
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A590A5C02@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Here are some suggestions to close this mail thread ... Proposed changes are identified as items a)-d).

>1. How to make existing WSDL section more specific to just WSDL

Suggested editorial changes are:

a) s/policy subjects/WSDL policy subjects/g
b) s/Specify Preferred Attachment Point/Specify Preferred WSDL Attachment Point/

>2. Determine which existing BP in existing WSDL section should be made generic

No changes are required.

>3. Determine if the WSDL section should handle WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 separately

Best practices in Section 5.7.2 are common across both WSDL 11 and 20. No changes are required.

>4. Determine if attachment terminology is used consistently in new General Guidelines section and the existing WSDL section

The editorial team took care of typos and terminology. The remaining ones are:

c) s/attachment models/attachment mechanisms/g
d) s/WS-PolicyAttachment/Web Services Policy 1.5 - Attachment/g

>5. Determine if any other specific sections are required for other attachment possibilities like UDDI

The WG is now tracking the UDDI work item as Action-339 (Maryann to coordinate drafting new materials on Guidelines for Assertion Authors re UDDI.)

No changes are required at this time.

>6. Can the BP in the WSDL section (or new section) be linked back to the generic versions in the General Guidelines section?

No changes are required.

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:56 AM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: questions needing vic^^^volunteers


Related to the issue resolution to 4654 [1], the following questions need to be examined and proposals
drafted:
1. How to make existing WSDL section more specific to just WSDL
2. Determine which existing BP in existing WSDL section should be made generic
3. Determine if the WSDL section should handle WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 separately
4. Determine if attachment terminology is used consistently in new General Guidelines section and the existing WSDL section
5. Determine if any other specific sections are required for other attachment possibilities like UDDI
6. Can the BP in the WSDL section (or new section) be linked back to the generic versions in the General Guidelines section?

Paul and I would like to encourage WG members to sign up to these (or else we will assign AIs!)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-irc#T09-34-40

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 02:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:08:24 UTC