Donal Thanks for the summary. Some quick comments inline. (I've shortened some of the text.) Donal K. Fellows wrote:
This is the summary of the other part of Igor's proposal.
Basically, the proposal is that all elements inside Application should be done as extensibility elements except for ApplicationType and Description.
I think there is an argument to also allow ApplicationName and ApplicationVersion in addition to the ones above. If not, then these are probably misnamed.
Then, the other current (v0.9 of the doc) elements inside Application should be moved to another XML namespace that describes "executable" type jobs (i.e. jobs that are fundamentally the running of an executable even if that happens to be hidden away inside). Then, the other types of jobs (particularly web-services invocations and SQL queries) that have been mentioned involve other sets of extensibility elements inside.
For the "executable" elements, I suggest the following namespace: http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2005/02/jsdl-executable.xsd
I'm ok with this.
: We need to add a note that the ApplicationType is *not* describing the format of the executable. (Thanks to Chin Chee-Kai for raising these issues.)
Good point.
Arguably, Limits should be done this way too, since they're only meaningful to executable-type jobs.
Something to discuss on a call.
For a "webService" invocation, the remaining body of the Application
I am against trying to define *normatively* anything beyond the basic structure and the 'executable' ApplicationType for JSDL version 1.0. I don't mind having webserviceinvocation and sql (or anything else for that matter) as *examples* that can help us get the structure right. But the focus should be on delivering a document that can go to the GGF Editor soon. My take is that ApplicationTypes beyond 'executable' (or executable-similar) should be defined as extensions post v1.0.
element (apart from the ApplicationType and Description) should be a :
Andreas