W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2006

Re: assertions review action item complete

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:07:37 -0500
To: Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060310110737.16214696.alewis@tibco.com>

Err.  Sorry about that.  I first thought that it was supposed to be a
review, then realized that the assertions set was incomplete, and then
found that neither the category nor the required attribute was always
as it should be.  So I treated it as a from-scratch request.

If necessary, I can review the change log, and supply the diffs for the
changes that I made.  All of the changes are in part two, adjuncts, and
relate to the message exchange patterns, fault propagation rulesets
(where the renumbering happened), and the safe attribute.  Assertions
were added for the safe attribute and MEPs (there were none prior to
the review).  The prefixes (name portion of the identifier) of all
changed items began with "Fault".  The revised numbering scheme leaves
deliberate gaps so that additional assertions could be established (and
some of the assertions are complex, so feedback on how to divide the
assertions would certainly be appreciated).

Amy!
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:22:22 -0500
Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

>Arthur,
>
>If the assertions are to be renumbered I would really appreciate the 
>new->old map so I don't have to sort through the new assertion numbers 
>manually.
>
>Thanks for thinking of those of us at Woden trying to answer the
>working group's call for implementations.
>
>Lawrence Mandel
>
>Software Developer
>IBM Rational Software
>Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
>lmandel@ca.ibm.com
>
>
>
>Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
>03/09/2006 02:55 PM
>Please respond to
>woden-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
>To
>"Amy Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org
>cc
>www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>Subject
>Re: assertions review action item complete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Amy, 
>
>Thx. It wasn't necessary to renumber the existing assertions. I didn't 
>want to break Woden. 
>
>I think we should do a batch renumbering before we exit CR, and
>provide a new->old map. 
>
>Arthur Ryman,
>IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
>blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
>phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
>assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
>fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
>mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 
>
>
>"Amy Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> 
>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>02/28/2006 11:33 PM 
>
>
>To
><www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
>cc
>
>Subject
>assertions review action item complete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Heylas,
>
>I had three sections to complete:
>
>Part 1 Introduction: I found no assertions in this section.
>
>Part 2 Predefined MEPs:  I found a largish number of assertions.  I
>found it necessary to renumber all of the existing ones to match the
>list provided by Arthur.  I also changed several "class" attributes
>and added "required" attributes as necessary.  I added a number of
>additional assertions (at least two per predefined MEP).
>
>Part 3 Predefined Extensions: I added assertions.
>
>Note: assertions seem, in these areas of our document, to often be
>more complex than anticipated by the markup.  For instance, a number
>of places could quite easily belong to both the class "exchange" and
>the class "component" (all of the "MEPNameComposition-idnumber" ones,
>for instance), and there are a number of occasions in which an outer
>"MAY" surrounded an inner "MUST".  I do not suggest that we attempt a
>more complex markup for ourselves, but those interested in this sort
>of markup may wish to explore the requirements (and current
>limitations).
>
>Amy! 
>


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 16:08:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:39 GMT