Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

see if this version is any better.  We need to be careful because its not 
correct to say how many MetadataSections can appear, rather we need to 
talk about metadata documents.  For any one metadata document there could 
be at least 3 different MetadataSections returned (epr, uri, metadata).


thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
08/24/2009 06:09 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal






I agree with the idea that we shouldn't repeat what MEX specifies, 
however, you have removed the parts where it states that the mex:Metadata 
for a single Event Source can contain at most one wse:EventDescriptions 
element and only one Notification WSDL per Notification 
Format/@Identifier. These are key constraints that need to be stated 
somewhere.

- gp

On 8/24/2009 1:38 PM, Doug Davis wrote: 

Overall I like the flow of this but I tried to remove some extra stuff 
that I think just adds verbosity w/o a good reason and will just lead to 
confusion ( like duplicating what MEX and WSDL already tell us).   
I also removed the unchanged portions of WS-Eventing - to keep it below 
the w3c mailing list size restriction.  :-) 



thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 

public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org wrote on 08/24/2009 02:23:32 PM:

> Attached (or inlined as the case may be) is draft 6 of a proposal 
> for issues 6401/6661. This proposal allows for the use of both the 
> EventDescriptions element and Format-specific Notification WSDLs. 
> There are still some open issues with this version of the proposal, 
> but these can be worked out by the WG. Note that, as per our 
> agreement at the last F2F, the section that describes the binding of
> wse:EventDescriptions to a Unwrapped Notification WSDL has been marked 
"TBD".
> 
> Thanks to Ram, Wu, and Li for their help and feedback. Thanks to 
> their input I think we've got something in which the combination of 
> EventDescriptions and Notification WSDLs offers some value beyond 
> merely serving as a political compromise.
> 
> - gp