Notes on Streams WD03

Toby

--
So the real question is what in the PIM is the base class for any of
the  new  classes. Is this a PSM? Should I look at the XSD?
Comments referenced to wd03 pdf:
The use of StreamBaseType is not clear to me. How does this
relate to PIM and WS-Calendar?
Copyright should be 2012-2013...but TCAdmin will do that as
needed.
Bookmark not defined in the TOC
No brackets around line 2
line 4 :  will benefit  should be  benefit ?
Not a biggie, but I don't hyphenate  time series
line 72 Why is namespace ...ns/energyinterop ? shouldn't it be
in ws-calendar? or one of the URNs? see strm on line 78.
line 78 Is WSDL important?
line 109 - mixing quote of WS-Calendar? WS-Calendar as quoted
by PIM? I think they're the same. Should the reference on line
115 be to WS-Calendar or PIM?
line 116 is this section normative?
line 128 caption uses  WS-Calendar Partition  but it's not in
the definitions in the previous section. It's in WS-Calendar at
202 and PIM at 84. I assume that since it's key to line 161,
that it should be defined in the tables not just in an example
caption. So insert definition in table 2-1.
Line 114 table does not say non-normative but line 143 does.
214  Market Signal Payload ? - change to  Payload  assuming
properly defined. Yes it is in table 3-1.
215 is the order required to reflect temporal order, e.g.
sorting by start times? If a partition that seems implicit but
could be explicit.
line 109: I think the model needs to be different; in PIM the
related-to  is not  RelatedToPropType , it's
RelationLink[Type]. Is that a suggestion to change the PIM type
to RelationLinkType in parallel with GluonType?  Good
suggestion.
Not sure how the ArrayOf types reflect in PIM - it's more an
XSD concept as I recall. We need to talk.
StreamPayloadBase is not in the document text; viz. figure at
199.
l203 seems a carryover from WS-Calendar Streams, rather than
PIM-based. What is  conformant communications ? Sounds like a
carryover from WS-Calendar as WS message content?
210 MAY NOT could probably be MUST NOT?  or is the intent MAY
but SHOULDN T? In which case SHOULD NOT is appropriate. MAY NOT
is not in RFC2119.
PIM DOESN'T HAVE UIDs - PUT IN NON-EXISTENT JIRA COMPONENT
PIM UIDs (if included) may simplify section 3.x
257 didn't we have confidence, or did we put it into the
payload?
I'd like a nice compact example of observational data in
l226ff. Possible non-normative appendix?
l247 what is the  service Context ? is that line 173? Is it
defined?
In general seems much clearer and cleaner.
Thanks!
bill

--
William Cox
Email:  
Web:  http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax