Re: Update for 4041

I included the changed sentence because it was raised, and I thought  
agreed, on the editors call. I did not hear any disagreement. My  
apologies, I did not mean to ignore anyone's concerns. I note however  
that not all editors even reviewed this draft, so I tried to make  
this clear in the message to the work group. This is a draft to help  
the work group get more progress at the F2F.

I agree with Asir that to avoid such concerns in the future we need a  
stronger process since this is the first time the editors team has  
made a proposal.

I note that if the chairs assign issues to individuals the process is  
simpler, and that if assigned to editors it will take longer in the  
future since we will need a process allowing for review, revision and  
consensus building. This time we opted to provide information to the  
work group to benefit the F2F, as discussed during the work group call.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jan 10, 2007, at 3:12 PM, ext Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:

> 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.html  and Frederick’s follow up  
> at:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/ 
> 0020.html
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:55:34 UTC