Re: Some items for discussion (Issue 8: Conflict Resolution Rules)

Hi all,

I agree with the problems those rules introduce, however before going
deeper into this (issue 8) I would first discuss more on the overall
concept of schemaMapping (issue 6/11).

Also the at present schemaMapping is mentioned in the spec only for the
type level is confusing to me (although the sawsdl schema does not
prohibit it elsewhere).

best
  Holger


Joel Farrell wrote:
> Rama,
> 
> I agree that we should add rigor and clarity to the resolution rules. If
> you have some possible suggestions, please send them along.  I don't think
> we can eliminate the need for these rules since there are valid reasons for
> putting annotations at both levels.  I am unaware of a way to enforce the
> rules.  The schema will not help here and we don't have much else at our
> disposal.
> 
>> Item: Conflict Resolution Rules (at the bottom of the section 2 in the
>> spec):
>> At the bottom of the section 2, we specify a bunch of rules to resolve
>> conflicts. Is there a way to formalize these rules or enforce them via
> the
>> spec? Or may be we should think about designing things in such a way that
>> conflicts don’t arise at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Joel


-- 
Holger Lausen

Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
http://www.deri.org/

Tel:   +43 512 5076464
Email: holger.lausen@deri.org