Revision and Clarifications of some PDs (reactions to Joe Chuisano's comments)

Joe:

 

In 27, you are right: contract must specify that 
"something" has been explicitly agreed between a set of entities. The clue to 
the possible wording is in the PD for the previous Isuue, N° 26 "...When a 
specific set of entities accept such a policy, a contract is usually 
established.". I will re-word, and re-submit.

 

In 31, my intention was to allow both definitions in the 
glossary, but I'm more or less happy with your formulation to meld them and will 
re-submit as a revised PD;

 

In 55, there *is* a PD:

"Structured data: data that is described according to an 
E-R (Entity-Relationship) model, such as data in a relational database or an XML 
document. Structured data can be easily processed due to its organized 
nature"...As such, I don't understand your comment: could you 
clarify?

 

Thx, and best regards,

 

-Peter

From: Chiusano Joseph 
[mailto:] 
Sent: 20 June 2005 
20:28
To: 
Subject: [soa-rm] 
[Next Set - #29-#60) RE: [soa-rm] Feedback on Latest Issues 
List

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.