[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: 20041102 Editor's call.
Participants in this morning's working group call reviewed the "Introduction" and "Concepts" sections of the draft SPMLv2 specification. Attendees: - Darran Rolls (Sun) - Gavenaj Sodhi (CA) - Jeff Bohren (Open Networks) - Gary Cole (Sun) Issues: ------- 1) Saying that a capability is analogous to a Java interface could be interpreted to suggest Java-centricity. 2) Saying that a target schema may contain DSML is wrong. DSMLv2 deprecates schema. We mean to say schema that is defined as part of the DSMLv2 binding for SPML. 3) A reader could misinterpret the Concepts/Target section and think that a Target acts as a provider (e.g., that a requestor communicates with a target). Action Items ------------ 1) Gary Cole to reword Concepts/Capability section. Remove any mention of the Java programming language and either A) say "programmatic interface" or B) find a different way to explain that supporting a capability for a schema entity implies that the provider supports for any optional operation that the capability defines. 2) Jeff Bohren to suggest appropriate language for the specification to describe A) a DSML target schema B) the DSML profile 3) Gary Cole to make clear in the Concepts/Target section that a target is not a provider (but is instead a container of objects that the provider manages).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]