On Apr 05, Toshiyuki Nakata loaded a tape reading:
Another tiny question 9.5 Port Type wsag:AgreementState
Is this really Port Type or should it be moved to Resource Property within 9.4 Port Type wsag:Agreement ?
Best Regards
I was hoping someone could explain to me why it was separated. :-) I think that happened during the time I was away from GRAAP-WG last year... I think a general question is whether PendingAgreement should be an add-on to an Agreement portType and, likewise, whether PendingAgreementFactory should be an add-on to AgreementFactory. If so, I think the shared states should be RPs on Agreement and AgreementFactory, respectively. If not, I think there should be separate AgreementState and AgreementFactoryState RPs that can be included in the RPs for each of the four disjoint portTypes. I prefer treating the Pending variants as add-ons rather than disjoint options. Remembering that WS and WSRF treat portType names as somewhat inconsequential, this would show up as "directed" implications that if a particular operation or RP appears, others MUST (or SHOULD?) appear in the port as well. karl p.s. was there a call today? I never saw any announcement nor minutes... -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com