Title: RDDL rough draft
A few comments and
questions.
1.) We need to decide if this document should refer
to the state and location of documents as they exist now or as they will exist
when the TC has completed its work (or some other time (e.g. when we
go to CS)). For example, should we say that the WS-RM specification is
found at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15789/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.pdf or http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510/ws-rm-1.1-spec.pdf ?
2.) RDDL documents are supposed
to describe namespaces. We have two namespaces that need to be described:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510 and http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200510.
Should we use the same RDDL document to describe both namespaces or should we
use separate documents? If the former, do we try and set up some kind of linking
or re-direction so that we only have one copy of the document or should we just
maintain two copies?
Attached is another version with some changes from
Steve's. I've made the document self-referential in case someone comes upon it
via some other path than de-referencing the namespace
URIs.
-
g
From: Winkler, Steve
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:21
PM
To:
Subject:
[ws-rx-editors] RDDL rough draft
Hi editors,
I talked with Gil today and agreed to take a first
stab at the RDDL doc. We figured it would be best to ultimately split
out the schema, examples, and wsdl from the appendix and put them into
separate files. We also determined that the TC will scream if we do this
without asking them first, so in the first step I've created a very simple
RDDL doc that simply points to the wsrm and wsrmp pdfs we have. This was
my first attempt with RDDL though, so I thought I would shop it here first
before sending it to the TC. Suggestions, comments, etc welcome.
There appear to be two versions of RDDL, and I
based my doc on RDDL 2.0 [1], specifically the examples in section 3.2 of the
W3C's Resources and Namespaces doc [2], as well as following the instructions
for natures [3] and purposes [4].
I feel that this should suffice for the time being,
but we will want to update it with the various files we will create from the
appendix (upon TC approval), and potentially even include older versions or
diffs of the draft here. Just a thought. Let me know what you
think.
Cheers,
Steve
[1] http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
[3] http://www.rddl.org/natures/
[4] http://www.rddl.org/purposes/
<<wsrx-rddl.html>>
Title: Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)
Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)
December 2006
Introduction
This document is a describes versions 1.1 of the
WS-ReliableMessaging
and
WS-RM Policy
namespaces.
WS-ReliableMessaging Core Specification
WS-ReliableMessaging Policy Specification
