Comments on SOAP Bindings for oBIX PR01

(1)    Simple Editorial Issues

 

Update namespaces on title page

Remove extra paragraphs between paragraphs

Lines 33-35: Update namespaces in example

 

78-199: If the WSDL is intended to be normative, then it should be placed in a separate artifact. It is OK to include it w/I the document for ease of reading, but if so, it should be noted that the machine readable artifact is normative

 

 

(2) Namespaces throughout document:

 

All examples are inconsistent with the rules on prefixes described Section 2.3 (XML Encoding) of the Common Encodings document. It may be that those rules (in encodings) are incorrect. This bears some group discussion.

 

(3) XML Namespaces in examples. 

 

This section should be removed or updated to not mandate possible collisions with other specifications. For example, If at a future date, A system supports oBIX 1.2 with an XML Encoding and a REST Binding, this section would seem to require that SOAP indicate a 1.1 namespace…

 

Alternately, this section should indicate that the examples are non-normative, and use 1.1 for clarity.

 

(1)    Localization

We should limit chained references. If the Localization from REST is moved into Encodings or into the core 1.1 (best), Then the SOAP binding would no longer need to make normative references to the REST Binding, which would simplify the document set and conformance.

 

 

"Energy and persistence conquer all things." -- Benjamin Franklin 

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

OASIS TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

OASIS TC Editor: EMIX, Energy Interoperation

SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee

  

Email: 
Phone: (919)619-2104

http://www.tcnine.com
blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com