Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

For the Binding for Unwrapped Notifications, I suggest using the text 
that I removed from a previous proposal:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information about an Event Type contained in the wse:eventType 
element binds to a Unwrapped Notification for that type as follows:

    * The [action] property of the Notification has the value of the
      actionURI attribute of the wse:eventType element corresponding to
      the type of the Event being transmitted.
    * The [children] property of the Notification's Body element has a
      single child element. This child element is an instance of the
      Global Element Declaration referenced by the element attribute of
      the wse:eventType element corresponding to the type of the Event
      being transmitted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I stated on the last concall, I only removed the above because that 
is what we agreed to at the F2F.

As for MIME types, what is wrong with simply using "text/xml"?

- gp

On 8/26/2009 10:54 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> This version generally looks good.
>
>  
>
> Some comments:
>
>  
>
> ·       Add a reference to RFC 3987.
>
> ·       Appendix A.2.  Comment I2 about the cardinality of EventTypes 
> needs to be addressed.
>
> ·       Appendix A.2.1. The sentence "An Event Source there MUST NOT 
> exist more than one EventDescription document" need to be correctly 
> worded.
>
> ·       Appendix A.2.2.1 Binding for Unwrapped notifications is 
> currently TBD. What is the plan for defining the binding? I prefer 
> that the proposal either has the binding defined. If this needs more 
> time, I suggest deleting the section and adding it later. This helps 
> avoid confusion when we go into Last Call.
>
> ·       In the F2F discussions on this issue, we noted that we need to 
> consider defining a MIME type for the Event Descriptions to be 
> consistent with usage of other transmission types. I suggest this 
> proposal include a MIME type for Event Descriptions.
>
>  
>
> Thanks.
>
>  
>
> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug 
> Davis
> *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2009 4:11 PM
> *To:* Gilbert Pilz
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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 <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
> _
> _public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> <mailto: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
>