RE: Update for 4041

You suggested rephrasing it in your review, and I provided a rephrase. I
am not understanding what you are getting at. That is exactly what I am
doing. 
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007 11:54 AM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit; WS-Policy Editors W3C
	Subject: RE: Update for 4041
	
	

	Hi Umit

	 

	 I had an explicit comment about the "being truthful" sentence.
Please see my comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0019.ht
ml  and Frederick's follow up at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0020.ht
ml 

	 

	Regards,

	Prasad

	 

	
________________________________


	From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp,
Umit
	Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:48 AM
	To: WS-Policy Editors W3C
	Subject: Update for 4041

	 

	Frederick,

	 

	Could you add the following sentence 

	 

	{It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will
be engaged using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit
wirelevel manifestations. The Ignorable marker allows them to be
truthful. }

	 

	after 

	 

	{Using the Optional attribute would be incorrect in this
scenario, since it would indicate that the behavior would not occur if
the alternative without the assertion were selected.}

	 

	in the last draft you sent out today. 

	 

	 

	This was captured in the discussion below. I do not want that to
be forgotten because there was a lot of discussion in the wg about this.


	 

	Thank you. 

	 

	--umit

	 

	 

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp,
Umit
	Sent: Monday, Jan 08, 2007 1:29 PM
	To: Maryann Hondo; Frederick Hirsch
	Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: 1st draft on primer ignorable

	Maryann, 

	 

	I just reviewed the comments you sent. I believe that they are
mostly editorial in improving the content of the proposal as you have
the captured the hallway conversations. I am fine with the revised text,
but I have one suggestion for the last sentence that says 

	 

	{It is incumbent on Providers  to declare their policies  and
the Ignorable marker allows them to be truthful.}

	 

	how about the following instead:

	 

	{It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will
be engaged using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit
wirelevel manifestations. The Ignorable marker allows them to be
truthful. 

	 

	--umit

	 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
		Sent: Monday, Jan 08, 2007 12:39 PM
		To: Frederick Hirsch
		Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
		Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable

		
		Frederick, 
		I have some comments on the text. 
		Sorry to have been so late in getting them to you and
I'm not sure how 
		much they impact other comments you received.  Sorry for
the delay. 
		Since I wasn't in the hall conversations, I'm not sure
if my understanding matches 
		everyone else's and I'm interested in knowing if I've
"got it". 
		Thanks. 
		
		Maryann 
		
		
		
		

Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 

01/05/2007 09:54 AM 

To

WS-Policy Editors W3C <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org> 

cc

Hirsch Frederick <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 

Subject

1st draft on primer ignorable

 

 

 

		
		
		
		Attached is 1st draft on adding ignorable to primer. I
think we can  
		do this simply by adding two new sections as noted.
		
		Please let me know if you think I should add it in today
to get it  
		into the draft for the F2F, or if you have any other
suggestion or  
		comment.
		
		Thanks
		
		regards, Frederick
		
		Frederick Hirsch
		Nokia