Re: Agenda for today's call

Regrets for today.

I'm out of the office, recovering from a bout of 

Speaking to specific points:

On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 10:32  AM, David Booth wrote:
> A. meps-vs-iops document[1].   Walk through to see if we are in 
> agreement.

Haven't looked since last Wednesday, sorry.

> - The latest update starts to model
> the IOPs as using message transmission *without* conservation of
> messages.  Is this helpful?  Are they worth including?  What about 
> faults?

I believe that this is useful (modeling without CoM).  Note that, as 
agreed last Thursday, specific reference to faults is to be removed 
from the current draft of WSDL part 2.  It would make sense to follow 
this, I believe.  I don't think that modeling faults helps us any.  So 
I would recommend that the models simply discard information about 
faults that they currently contain.  This should simplify both regexen 
and pictures.

> - Sections on "Modeling Objective" and
> "Modeling Notation".  Are these acceptable?
> - Consider focussing on one IOP (such as IOP#2), and do a depth-first 
> analysis of the various corresponding MEPs

I think that this is potentially a very fruitful way forward.

Sorry to be missing today.


Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 10:42:41 UTC