Hi: Karl Czajkowski wrote:
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.
Same here.. 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...
there was but lasted for 10 minutes or so. I think Jim is going to post an announcement for meeting on Wednesday.. (evening-night for people in Asia.) Best Regards Toshi.. -- Toshiyuki Nakata t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 8-22-60210)