- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:57:17 -0400
- To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF2151EBC8.F7AADE15-ON852575AE.0082F08A-852575AE.0083988F@us.ibm.com>
Its a different issue because even w/o my issues to use "*" on the
xs:any's your desire to add that text would still remain. Plus, this new
text (if adopted) should go into all of the WSRA specs as there's nothing
Transfer specific about the requirement. That broadens the scope of this
issue. As the issue owner I'm not comfortable with merging the two.
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>
05/06/2009 02:20 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,
These issues concern how to correctly represent extensibility in the spec.
Why is it not acceptable to add our suggested text below (or add the
previously suggested {any} statements, if preferred) as part of the
solution to correctly represent extensibility? This seems like exactly
the right context to be talking about this, and we feel that this text
will help increase understanding concerning extensibility. We do not
understand the push back here.
Proposed text to add to the end of Section 2.4 [1]
Extension elements and attributes MUST NOT use the Web Services Transfer
namespace name.
--Geoff
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html#extensions
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 4:50 PM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: 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]
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 23:58:06 UTC