RE: Update for 4041

Prasad, 
 
I am not contradicting your comment. You wrote in your comments that you
sent to Frederick that either rephrase this or delete this sentence.
Then Maryann sent her comments and I proposed the change in order to
address ALL the issues that existed with the sentence. That is my
reasoning and I DO PREFER the sentence not to be deleted. As I have said
in my previous email, we discussed this topic in a long conversation in
the wg emails that providers should be advertising the behaviors
correctly. Should I have said "correctly" instead of "truthfully" or
should have used the word "truthiness" following Colbert ;-) 
 
I really do not see what the "big" problem is and I have offered the
explanation in my previous email. 
 
--umit
 
 
 


________________________________

	From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007 12:17 PM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
	Subject: RE: Update for 4041
	
	

	You are contradicting my comment that Frederick accepted. That
was the reason it was not included in the updated proposal.

	I wanted to be sure you were aware of it as you did not offer
any explanation as to "why you want it put back", other than as an
editorial refinement over what Maryann has provided in your review.
What is your reason?

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:13 PM
	To: Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
	Subject: 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