Toshi,

there are Elements (contained in the list types) with these respective names. No types, though. Hence, I think describing the element it ok.

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/

Toshiyuki Nakata <nakata@mtg.biglobe.ne.jp>

04/07/2006 11:23 AM

Please respond to
t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com

To	t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com
cc	Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne@hp.com>, GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org>, owner-graap-wg@ggf.org
Subject	Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 4/5 telecon

Sorry: I might have not been too clear. To clarify: I've no problem with the actual XML schema. I'm only worried about whether it is OK to refer to non-defined constructs namely <wsag:ServiceTermState> and <wsag:GuaranteeTermState> in the pseudo-schema. If that is what you mean by the following I 'm quite happy. >>the idea being that, on a domain level, subtypes of different >> name spaces can be nested in. best regards Toshi Toshiyuki Nakata wrote: > Hi Heiko: > thank you very much about looking into the schema. > > My problem had been that in Sections 7.2 and Section 7.3 > There are descriptions of pseudo schema for > <wsag:ServiceTermState> and > <wsag:GuaranteeTermState> > > but not in the actual schema. > Is this OK? > > Best Regards > Toshi > > Heiko Ludwig wrote: > >> Regarding my todo: >> >> I didn't get to validating the schema in time prior to the Friday >> call. However, we do have the TermStateType in the schema. >> >> <xs:complexType name="TermStateType"> >> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> >> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> >>  >> <xs:element name="Processing" type="wsag:InnerTermStateType"/> >> <xs:element name="Idle" type="wsag:InnerTermStateType"/> >> </xs:choice> >> <xs:attribute name="termName" type="xs:string"/> >> </xs:complexType> >> There is no separate GuaranteeTermStateType but a >> GuaranteeTermStateListType since they always come in lists in our port >> types. the idea being that, on a domain level, subtypes of different >> name spaces can be nested in. >> >> As to my understanding and as things look to me, this is ok. However, >> we should verify the whole schema, anyway. >> >> Heiko >> >> >> ----- >> Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol. >> IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598 >> hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 675 8469 >> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne@hp.com> Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org >> 04/05/2006 11:12 AM >> >> To >> GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org> >> cc >> >> Subject >> [graap-wg] minutes from 4/5 telecon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are attached. Note that the next call will be on Friday, 4/7, at the >> usual time of day. Reminder announcement to follow. >> >> --- Jim >> >> >> Minutes from the April 5, 2006 GRAAP Telecon >> >> Attendees >> --------- >> Toshi Nakata >> Jim Pruyne >> Chris Dabrowski >> Asit Dan >> Wolfgang Ziegler >> Heiko Ludwig >> >> Discussion >> ---------- >> >> - On updated termination diagram: >> * Asit to send a note on the mailing list to verify that we really >> have a transition from PendingAndTerminating to >> ObservedAndTerminating. None of us seem to be able to come up with >> a message sequence that would cause that to happen. >> * Asit will do an additional diagram to show the initial states that >> may be seen. >> >> - Spreadsheet row 10: Heiko to validate the schema as it relates to >> ServiceTermState and GuaranteeTermState. Heiko to post those >> changes back to the mailing list, and we'll determine follow-up >> steps on the next call (which is on Friday). >> >> - The next call will be on Friday, 4/7, same time of day! >> >> >> > > >