Re: RA WD Spec Issues

W/regards to 8; why should the mode URI resolve to anything? It just  
needs to be a unique string. If it did resolve to something, what  
would it resolve to and how would that help users or implementers?

-gp

On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> comments inline.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
>
>
> Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> 02/11/2009 04:58 PM
>
> To
> "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> cc
> Subject
> RA WD Spec Issues
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> We have been reviewing the five working drafts, and while this will  
> be an on-going process over the course of the coming week, in the  
> interests of having information in a timely manner, we are providing  
> feedback as early as possible.  So far we have only carefully  
> evaluated the Eventing spec, but a number of comments below will  
> apply to all other specs.  We are assuming it is best to send these  
> WD issues to the mailing list rather than enter each in bugzilla,  
> although we have not seen others submit WD issues yet.  Are others  
> also reviewing these specs?
> Hope this helps,
> Geoff
>
> Eventing spec and some more general Issues
> 1.      The link for “This version” (http://www.w3.org/WS-RA/WS-Eventing/2009 
> 0121) does not resolve.  Is the link correct?
> <dug> I'm assuming this will be resolved when its published </dug>
>
> 2.      The Working Draft Date says “21 January 2009” – should  
> say XX February 2009.
> <dug> ditto </dug>
>
> 3.      In the status section of each spec, there should be a  
> statement that explains the intent of this working draft.  Perhaps  
> something along the lines of:  This working draft is meant only as a  
> direct translation of the submitted spec into W3C format.  There are  
> many issues in the working group that will cause changes to this  
> draft.  Please see working group issue list.
> <dug> I'll let the WG decide this - given its a working draft it  
> seems obvious that there are still open issues  :-)  </dug>
>
> 4.      There should be mention in the status section that the  
> acknowledgement section is yet to be updated.
> <dug> Added "TBD" to the acks section for all specs </dug>
>
> 5.      It would appear that the public archive link in the status  
> section of each spec is not correct.
> <dug> hmm, Yves, will this URL work later or did we grab the wrong  
> URL? </dug>
>
> 6.      In the status section, it says:
> “This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted  
> by other documents at any time.”
> Not sure if obsoleted is actually a word, suggest:
> “This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or made obsol 
> ete by other documents at any time.”
> <dug> WG should decide, this text is the same as what was in WSA </ 
> dug>
>
> 7.      In the XML namespaces section, at the bottom, there is a  
> spelling mistake: “implementationc” should be  
> “implementations” – probably in all specs.
> <dug> fixed - all specs </dug>
>
> 8.      Eventing, section 2.2 “http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-evt/DeliveryModes/Wr 
> ap” needs to resolve to something
> <dug> I'm assuming this will fix itself once we publish, Yves?  </dug>
>
> 9.      Eventing section 4.2 – the link “4.1 Subscribe “ has an  
> extra space in it at the end.  This happens in both occurrences in t 
> his section.
> 10.   Eventing section 4.3 – the 2 links “4.2 Renew “ have an  
> extra space in them.
> 11.   Eventing section 4.4 – the link “4.2 Renew “ has an extra  
> space.
> 12.   Eventing section 4.5 – extra space in “4.1 Subscribe “  
> also period inside of “)” instead of outside.
> <dug> all of the above "space" issues are fixed - for all specs  -  
> and the .) for ws-eventing</dug>
>
> 13.   Eventing Appendix B says:
> “A normative copy of the XML Schema [XML Schema, Part 1] , [XML Sche 
> ma, Part 2] for this specification may be retrieved by resolving the 
>  XML namespace URI for this specification (listed in 3.2 XML Namespa 
> ces ).”
> Will that be true?  What will be resolved at: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-evt 
>  ?
> We hope it will resolve to the actual namespace document.
> We also hope that some link will be available that resolves to the  
> schema document.
> Note also extra space in link name.
> <dug> WG to decide - but won't the ns url resolve to a rddl doc and  
> from there people will be able to get to the xsd and wsdl?  so isn't  
> that statement correct (indirectly)? But this asks the question of  
> how many fixes we should do vs just a translation?</dug>
>
> 14.   Eventing Appendix C says:
> “A normative copy of the WSDL [WSDL 1.1] description can be retrieve 
> d from the following address:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-evt/eventing.wsdl
> Is that true?  We hope it will resolve to the actual WSDL document.
> <dug> once we publish I hope so </dug>
>
>