W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Scrub: RT Issues (was RE: WS-Fragment uploaded

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
cc: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909270953580.16294@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:

>> ACTION-94: Review RT issues and re-classify the targets - WS-Fragment | RT | Moot
>
> We took an action to scrub through open Working Group issues (http://tinyurl.com/rt-issues) that apply to the Resource Transfer specification. Here are our draft findings .
>
>
> Applies to WS-Fragment
>
> 1. The WG can safely re-target the following issue to WS-Fragment
>
> a) 6407 RT: define policy
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407
>
>
> Close With No Action
>
> 2. The WG can safely close the following issues with no actions if the WG decides to retire RT
>
> a) 6422: RT - Introduces An Ad Hoc Boxcarring Mechanism
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6422
> Why? WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
>
> b) 6549: RT - Create focused on resource fragments
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6549
> Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not include a fragment-level create operation..
>
> c) 6552: RT - Lifecycle metadata for Create
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6552
> Why? WS-Fragment does not include any lifecycle metadata features.
>
> d) 6576: RT - No Fault Defined for Mismatch between
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6576   ResourceTransfer header and message body
> Why? WS-Fragment does not use a SOAP header.
>
> e) 6578: RT - SideEffects applies to other faults
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6578
> Why? This issue is germane if and only if a boxcarring mechanism is used. WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
>
> f) 6579: RT - Bad fragment values with Create
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6579
> Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation.
>
> g) 6603: RT - Inconsistencies in CreateResponse message
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603
> Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation.
>
> h) 6634: RT - Document algorithm for modify
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6634
> Why? This issue is germane if and only if a boxcarring mechanism is used. WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
>
> i) 6636: RT- Add example of resource after the create
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
> Why? There are two parts here - the first part applies to an example that illustrates a fragment-level create operation and the second part talks about what is the type of a resource created (by a fragment-level create operation). The first part is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation. The second part was split as an independent issue (6711) and was resolved by the WG.
>
> 3. The WG can safely close the following issue with no actions:
>
> a) 6550: RT - Support for XSLT and XQuery in PUT
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6550
> Why? XSLT or XQuery can be used as an expression dialect in fragment-level operations that are defined in WS-Fragment. We are not aware of any requirements to define such built-in dialects.
>
>
> Defer to Yves
>
> 4. We defer analysis of the last RT issue to Yves
>
> a) 7013 - Transfer: Partial PUT and Versioning
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7013
> Related action is 67 - http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/67.

This one can be closed with no action (on RT), if we do something (I'll 
send something soon) it will be in another document, like a WG Note.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 13:55:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT