RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673

So, let's split this into two parts.
1 - the proposal as I sent in - which you're ok with.
2 - the addition of new xs:any elements to the explanatory text after the 
pseudo schema.

On 2 - it would seem to me that you would want this added regardless of my 
proposal since those xs:any's are already there - just with a different 
cardinality.  Therefore, I'd like you to open up a new issue for it so we 
can discuss that separately as it is really unrelated to these issues.

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
05/01/2009 07:17 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, 
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]