[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Comment on the Core 08 spec...
I am copying the below correspondence between JeffB and myself to the list so it may be referenced as changes to the next draft. See below: ========================================================= Darran Rolls http://www.waveset.com Waveset Technologies Inc drolls@waveset.com 512) 657 8360 ========================================================= > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:39 PM > To: Darran Rolls > Subject: Comment on the Core 08 spec... > > Darran, > > Some comments on the core 08 spec: > > On reading this I realized that the core spec is slanted toward just > the SPML/SOAP profile. The core spec need to apply equally to the SOAP > and File bindings as well as any future bindings we might develop. [DJR] Jeff - how specifically does this shows itself? > We should stop using the term "Schema Schema". It feels too much like > the Catch-22 character Major Major Major Major. A perferable term > should be "Provisioning Schema". [DJR] Agreed. Unless anyone has pain with this I will change this in draft 09. > Globally you need to remove the :core, :schema, and :req name > qualifiers form all SPML urns. > > In 5.2 SPML is spelled SPMLL > > In 5.3 you refer to an :operation namespace in the URN. There is no > such namespace. > > In 7.1 you refer to "name=value pairs" (this is used elsewhere to). I > would prefer "name=(multi)value pairs", since an attribute could have > multiple values if defined that way. > > In 7.3.1 we say the add request create a new instance of a service. > This is not a good description because the add request could be > creating any number of things (e.g. a new group). It would be better > to say that the add request creates a new instance of an object as > defined by its object classes. > > In 7.3.2, same comment about service instances. > > In 7.3.3, same comment about service instances. > > In 7.3.4, same comment about service instances. > > In 7.6 instead of "Service Schema" I would use the term "Provisioning > Schema". > > In 7.6 in the example the object class would not be ":standard". > Rather it would be an object class in the "standard" schema, such as > ":standard:person". [DJR] Above all included in 09 draft.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]