RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673

Doug,
We are happy with the wording that is used to describe message elements, but would still like either the explicit {any} extension statements included or the compromise proposal below.

> Gil already covered why it's bad to repeat the extensibility and xsd text

As far as I know, the spec repeats everything in the XML Schema documents. Are there any reasons to NOT repeat ONLY extensibility points? If the concern is about the amount of verbiage, then the MUST NOT use Transfer namespace name statement can be captured in Section 2.4 [1].  For clarity reasons, we would like that statement included somewhere.  We would find it acceptable to add it to each spec if you require consistency.

Does that work for you?
--Geoff

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html#extensions



From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 1:01 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673


Attached is a revised version.
Gil already covered why its bad to repeat the extensibility and xsd text.


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.

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

04/23/2009 02:53 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

cc

Subject

RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673







Doug,
I have no real objection to that particular change to the Put message, although I am curious as to why you think it is better?
If you propose to change other messages similarly, I would want to see the text you are proposing, before agreeing.

I think there is value in the {any} statements that I added.  Specifically the "Such elements MUST NOT use the Web Services Transfer namespace name" wording seems useful to be included.  It also seems useful to callout the specific spots where extension can be made, but am willing to accept alternatives.

Geoff


From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:38 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673


Geoff,
 Chris suggested some wording tweaks - for example, for Put:
This REQUIRED element MUST have as its first child element, an element that comprises the representation of the resource that is to be replaced. Additional extension elements MAY be included after the element representing the resource.

instead of:
This is a REQUIRED element.  The first child element MUST contain the representation to be used for the update.  If extension elements are present, they MUST occur after the mandatory first child element.

Thoughts?

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.
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>

04/21/2009 01:58 PM


To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>

Subject

RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673











Doug,
Don't you think that it is useful to call out specific points of extensibility in the spec?
Both Policy and RX use this notation.
--Geoff

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673


Hi Geoff,
I'm ok with most of this but I don't think we need the extra stuff about the {any} and @{any} - no other WSRA spec has this text for their extensibility points and I think our extensibility section already covers this.  So, if we remove those edits I'm ok with this.

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.
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

04/21/2009 01:04 PM




To

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

cc

Subject

proposal for 6594, 672, 6673














The proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0088.html) from IBM is generally good and we suggest the following changes.

Here is a summary of the proposed changes - change doc is attached.

1)     The proposal for 6730 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0024.html) generally clears up the notion of extensions. I have reworded all 8 messages to hopefully make more accurate statements about the use of extensions.
2)     Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in PutResponse.
3)     Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in Create.

--Geoff



From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:15 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673


Attached is joint proposal for issues 6594, 6672 and 6673 - they all seemed to touch on the same concern.



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.[attachment "I6594-6672-6673-prop.doc" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]