Next set (issues 29-60,
inclusive):
ISSUE 29: Concur with PD - issue
closed.
ISSUE 30: No specific PD
provided. PD simply provides a URL to
the new semantics section, with no further explanation given. The new semantics
section does not include the word "context" anywhere - so I am not certain
whether the text that describes context was relocated to another section (and I
need to verify the issue against that instance), or if it has been removed from
our spec altogether. Issue still
open.
ISSUE 31:
Do not concur with PD,
as it offered 2 definitions for "fabric" but did not stipulate which would be
placed in the glossary (and the Discovery, Presence, & Availability section
to which a link was provided did not include the word "fabric"). Given a
preference, I actually prefer the 2 definitions combined as follows: An abstract
concept that represents the environment in which a service resides, is
discovered, is invoked, and is managed, and via which messages are carried
between entities that interact with the service.
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 32: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 33: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 34: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 35: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 36: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 37: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 38: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 39: No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 40:
No specific PD
provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still
open.
ISSUE 41:
No specific PD
provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still
open.
ISSUE 42:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 43:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 44:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 45:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 46:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 47: No PD provided at all. Issue still
open.
ISSUE 48: No specific PD
provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still
open.
ISSUE 49: No PD provided at all. Issue still
open.
ISSUE 50:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 51:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 53:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 55:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 56:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 57:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 58:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 59:
No specific
PD provided (same as Issue 30).
Issue still
open.
ISSUE 60: No specific PD
provided (same as Issue 30). Issue still
open.
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: Chiusano Joseph
[mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 2:33
PM
To:
Subject: [soa-rm]
Feedback on Latest Issues List
Here is my
feedback on PDs for issues 6-28 (all mine). This is for the version sent 6/17,
archived at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/soa-rm/200506/msg00167.html.
I will send another e-mail soon (Mon/Tues) with another group - this is all I
had a chance for right now.
Please note: My
stating "issue closed" or "issue still open" below is not meant to be
controversial - rather, it is my way of ensuring that I communciate 100%
clearly what I believe the status of the issue to be so that no one comes back
later if I have comments on text and says "you should not have stated that the
issue was closed". Many of the "issue still open" below are because the PD
stated that additional text need to be added or existing text updated, but the
new/updated text was not provided. My assumption here is that we cannot
consider an issue closed if the new/updated text is not
provided.
If our procedures
are such that an issue can be closed if new/updated text is not provided in
the PD, and the new/updated text can be commented on when it is added (and a
new issue created then if necessary), then please consider feedback below of
"Concur with PD, exact wording still pending - issue still open." to mean
that the issue should then be closed.
Clear as mud? For
me too.;)
Here they
are:
ISSUE 6: Concur
with PD - issue closed.
ISSUE 7: Recommend
removing entire paragraph, which is consistent with there the PD was heading
(details probably not appropriate for an RM, as they are too
implementation-specific). This recommend should be clarified with editor
before closing issue.
ISSUE 9: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 10: Concur with PD - issue
closed.
ISSUE 11: PD indicates further action
needed on this - issue still open.
ISSUE 12: Concur with PD's suggestion of
referencing the definition of context provided as PD for issue #105. However,
may have minor comments on Issue #105's definition - will provide later for
Issue 105. Issue 12 is closed.
ISSUE 13: PD indicates further action
needed on this - issue still open.
ISSUE 14: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 15: Do not concur with PD. Believe
we should still provide a "lighter" example that is not related to supersonic
jet speeds and flow dynamics, for maximum possible chance of reader
comprehension. Issue still open.
ISSUE 16: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still
open.
ISSUE 17: PD refered to an invalid issue
# (07-01). Need proper reference - issue still
open.
ISSUE 18: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 19: Concur
with PD - issue
closed.
ISSUE 21: Do not concur with PD, as it
did not not address the comment which was that we should clarify what we mean
by "standard, reference-able format". For example, do we mean data exchange
format (XML, EDI, etc.)? Do we mean a data standard that is created by a
community of interest (COI), regardless of whether it is expressed in XML,
EDI, etc. (or multiple formats)? Issue still
open.
ISSUE 22: Concur
with PD - issue closed.
ISSUE 23: Do not concur with PD, as I am
not certain why we are talking about resources here rather than services.
Perhaps we need a section on resources and their relation to services, if that
is pertinent for our work. Issue still open.
ISSUE 26: Concur with PD, exact wording
at cited location in spec still pending - issue still
open.
ISSUE 27: Do not concur with PD because
do not concur with proposed definition of contract. The proposed definition
does not reference the fact that a contract requires 2 or more parties, as it
does on line 186 (Service Consumer and service). It is also too close to
the definition for policy. There was a link provided to the most recent
Semantics section, but providing this did not address the original issue which
was for line 186. Issue still open.
ISSUE 28: Concur
with PD - issue
closed.
