Jem After your sentence
Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the appropriate domain-expert working groups,
Should you add "or design teams" at the end. I am raising this because for informations services there is no plan to form a WG. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:21 PM To: Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire Cc: ogsa-wg Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents Hiro/Steve/Tom, My comments also embedded...
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:29 AM To: Steven Newhouse Cc: ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
Thanks Steven,
My comments inline <HK>. ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Steven Newhouse wrote:
OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 (v018 June 13th 2005)
Page 1: Status of this memo Is there not a WSRF missing from this opening line? e.g. '... write normative OGSA services based around the WSRF set of specifications.'
<HK> Good catch! Your text works for me. </HK>
JT: I'll leave this one for Tom, as he has the pen again right now.
OGSA Roadmap (v010 June 6th 2005)
Section 2, Point 1, Bullet 3: Should these service description documents not be 'owned' by the working group developing the service? The text implies to me that the OGSA-WG writes them... which I don't think is the case.
<HK> Good point. Let's add something like "domain-expert WG writes this service description (scenario document) if appropriate." </HK>
JT: Here's my update, in line (I think!) with Hiro's suggestion: * Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe the services in the area in natural language, listing the interfaces and operations defined by each service. * Scenario documents, also written by domain-expert working groups, demonstrate how these services can implement the use cases, using a combination of natural language and UML.
Section 2.2: Should there not be some statement that OGSA profiles should be developed/revised outside the OGSA-WG in theor own WG?
<HK> I think they can if their Profile abide by OGSA branding guideline. </HK>
JT: I inserted this text at what is now line 199, *before* the para beginning "Members of the OGSA-WG": OGSA Recommended and Informational Profiles may be developed either by the OGSA-WG or by domain-expert working groups, but it is important to note that they must adhere to GGF's forthcoming OGSA branding guidelines, which are discussed in section 2.3. Let me know if you see any issues with this, as I'll be posting this for final call very soon. Thanks! - Jem