Re: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313

MaryAnn,
I support your proposal. I do have a few minor editorial sections to 
support existing text in the Framework.  Thanks.

> Maryann Hondo wrote:  Dave,
> I'm totally open to other alternatives.
> I just tried to reuse what seemed to be a "common" term. My main goal 
> was to group the same information in one place
> rather than having it sprinkled throughout.
>
> Maryann
>
>
> *"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>
> 06/12/2007 11:32 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> I think I'm ok with most of the changes, but I have a lot of heartburn 
> over the issue of "XML Outlines" AI 305 and tying WS-Policy to them. 
>  I think we should say something more generic like a human readable 
> and machine processable description.  I don't see any customers doing 
> custom assertions using "XML Outlines", that's only geeks like us in 
> the WS-* groups.
>  
> But I think it me to propose something.  I'll bring it up on the 
> policy wg call somewhere.
>  
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Maryann Hondo*
> Sent:* Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:30 PM*
> To:* public-ws-policy@w3.org*
> Subject:* Strawman for AI 286, 303, 305, 313
>
>
> All,
>
> I've had several AI's for the Guidelines document, and I have created 
> a strawman for addressing them.
> I've created a diff doc against the latest version of the Guidelines 
> document to address the following:
>
> AI 286 - There has been an ongoing action to deal with the Guidelines 
> document with regard to things we
> have learned from the WS-Addressing groups efforts to create new 
> assertions.
>                
>        Monica had floated several proposals dealing with context and 
> vocabulary.
>        I tried to incorporate this input into the sections 5.4.2 
> "Nested Assertions" and Section 8 "Designing Assertions".
>        I may not have captured all the text, but I thought I'd tee 
> this up for discussion
>
> AI 303 - propose "bumper sticker text"
>
>        This one came up at the F2F where we were discussing changes to 
> BP 7.
>
>        This may seem like a radical change, but when I looked at the 
> table of Best Practices, I couldn't really relate
>        to this list.  It seemed very inconsistent in its "guidance". 
>  I looked at other BP docs at the W3C and used the
>        I18N one as an example.
>
>        I took the model of having each item  be
>                "Best Practice # - <statement> "
>        I think its now more of a clear "should" or "action" statement 
> ( but am always open to friendly amendments)
>
> AI 305- Generalize Best Practice for XML outline
>
>        I moved a bunch of things around trying to "group" all the best 
> practices that deal with the XML outline section
>        and I included an example from the Reliable exchange document.
>
>        In doing this I also restructured the "ignorable" and 
> "optional" sections to remove the "general guidance" on
>        defining the attributes ( since this is now in the "general" 
> section) and tried to add text to make the sections
>        be more in parallel.
>
> AI 313 - Bug 3978---- Section 7
>
>        I still think the Best Practices text in this section should be 
> included.  But I think it was in the wrong place.
>        So I propose moving it to Section  5.7 and propose rewording 
> this to be Best Practices for Policy Attachment.
>        Then have a "general" section, and then have a section for 
> "WSDL" specific Best practices.
>
>
> Maryann
>        
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 15:56:38 UTC