W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Spec wording for operation safety

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:00:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB06CFA471@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "'Roberto Chinnici'" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Jeffrey Schlimmer'" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>

OK, the component model attribute could be {safety}.  But this doesn't do
much for readability of the component model. :-)

It just seems like the {safety} property can have multiple values like
"really safe", "sorta safe" and "not safe".  Where as {safe} is either true
or false.

Not a big deal - as long as the syntax is right. :-)

Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:56 AM
To: Tom Jordahl; 'David Booth'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: 'Roberto Chinnici'; 'Martin Gudgin'; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Jeffrey
Subject: Re: Spec wording for operation safety

I put {safety} and @safe because the user would say "operation is safe"
or "operation is not safe" and the person querying the model would
say "what's is the value of the safety property of the operation?".

What do you think? Maybe we can do a straw poll on the call tomorrow
if it doesn't get clear consensus on the list.

Not to bias the vote or anything (;-)), but it is *already* *written*
with the form above: {safety} and @safe.

p.s.: I thought you and I came up with {safety} & @safe sitting next
to each other @ the F2F?? Must've been Youenn then.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "'Roberto Chinnici'"
<Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>; "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>;
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "'Jeffrey
Schlimmer'" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: Spec wording for operation safety

> The name of the attribute and component model property should be "safe".
> The question is
>   "Is it SAFE?" - Yes or No.
> not
>   "Is it SAFETY?" - Yes or No.
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:37 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Roberto Chinnici; Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques
> Moreau; Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Subject: Spec wording for operation safety
> Editors,
> For Section 2.3.1, description of "{safety}", here is suggested wording to
> fill in this description, to replace the existing paragraph:
> [[
> {safety} A boolean indicating whether the operation is asserted to be safe
> (as defined in WebArch
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#safe-interaction ) for
> of the described service to invoke.
> If this property is false or is not set, then no assertion has been made
> about the safety of the operation, thus the operation may or may not be
> safe.
> However, an operation SHOULD be marked safe if it meets the criteria for a
> safe interaction defined in WebArch
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#safe-interaction .
> The default value of this property is false.
> ]]
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 10:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:39 UTC