Hi,
As opposed to the proposal document, I separated the definition of the dmi:Status element from the fault definition that would be conveyed in the new dmi:Detail section. The reason being for clarity in the specification that the usual, expected flow of DTI lifecycle would not require the use of faults at all, and that only unexpected (hopefully) rare occasions would need faults. Also, faults keep being collected and specified in one place, being section 5.3 in the current specification.
Does all this mean that the WSDL on GridForge is now out of alignment with the spec. Would it be worthwhile using the Source Code section on Grid Forge to modify this? No idea how it works but it might allow distribution of the maintenance of the WSDL and Schema - thoughts? Mario +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Mario Antonioletti:EPCC,JCMB,The King's Buildings,Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. | |Tel:0131 650 5141|mario@epcc.ed.ac.uk|http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~mario/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+