RE: EPR Technical Notes (Issue 5341)

A clarification to what I said below.

 

Regarding the alleged "cleverness" of the move from the non-normative
status of the note to accepting the framework as normative, which was
actually meant as a compliment to John and as an attention grabbing for
the reader, I realize that the reference is obscure.

 

I was explicitly referring to the passage in section 2.1, immediately
following the non-normative statement of the framework where the Note
states (lines 133- 137):

 

The preceding definition of the Framework Core (FC) is provided as
non-normative.  However, if this FC is adopted as the basis of defining
EPR-based SML reference schemes (see [section 3.1]), then testing
compliance with the framework would require the following changes to the
language of the framework.

 

And then the rules of interpreting the Framework as normative are given.

 

I apologize if this caused any confusion or if my language made it sound
as if something was going on behind the scenes.  The only thing that was
going on behind the scenes was that I had struggled with the problem of
presenting an essentially non-normative Technical Note as laying down
what I would like to be considered normative rules for how EPR-based SML
reference schemes are to be defined-and wasn't very successful at coming
up with a way of doing that.  So I thought the John's approach solved
the problem in an elegant way.

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.

Research Staff Member, CA Labs

603 823-7146 (preferred)

Cell:  603 991-8873

 

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.

________________________________

From: Wilson, Kirk D 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:01 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: EPR Technical Notes (Issue 5341)

 

All,

 

In preparation for the upcoming F2F, which, unfortunately, I'm not going
to be able to attend, but I may be able to "attend" the morning sessions
by phone, here is the current draft of the EPR Technical Notes.  The
attached copy that says "Finalversion" contains the change bars for some
previous prior version (it may not have been the previous version that
was distributed to the group, because John and I have had several
off-line iterations on the Note), the other version has all changes
accepted.  I suspect you will want to read the document from the
beginning anyway to refresh yourself on it.

 

Major points to note:

1.	The Note actually defines a Framework for defining EPR-based SML
reference schemes.  A framework is required because there is no one
thing that is an SML EPR reference scheme.  EPR reference schemes may be
quite varied depending on the service and its interface that is being
addressed.  So the note suggests some normative ideas for defining EPR
reference schemes (note the clever way John proposed to move from the
non-normative status of the technical note to accepting the framework as
normative for EPR-based SML reference schemes), and I try to work out
one possible path for defining an EPR-based SML reference scheme based
on the OASIS WS-ResourceFramework standard in some detail.
2.	The absolutely most challenging part of this note, on which John
and I had lots-and-lots of emails, was defining the mechanisms by which
EPR-based SML reference schemes can be rendered interoperable, or more
precisely, what the definition of an EPR-based SML reference scheme
might include so that interoperability can be achieved between two
vendors accepting that particular reference scheme definition. 

 

(I will add the reference to this email to the issue.)   

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.

CA, Inc.

Research Staff Member, CA Labs

Council for Technical Excellence

Tele: 603 823 7146  (preferred)

Cell: 603 991 8873

Fax: 603 823 7148

kirk.wilson@ca.com

 

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.