[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] CR32
Tom, The V2 tModels already have V3 keys. The addition of the new categorization is covered by section 4.3 in the CR, relating to new sections 10.5.1-4 as you mention. We don't give full V3 versions of the V2 tModels in the V3 spec. so I just described the delta. As for updating the CR, I did that and uploaded the new CR on May 28th. See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200305/msg00113.html I think the minutes are incorrect with respect to the error code to be returned. My notes from the last call were to use E_invalidValue but the minutes say E_invalidKey should be returned. John Colgrave IBM -----Original Message----- From: Tom Bellwood [mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com] Sent: 11 June 2003 23:26 To: John Colgrave Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [uddi-spec] CR32 John, I think that the CR32 needs to include information in the solution section which ports forward the V2 versions of the removed tModels and decorates them with V3 evolved keys. We can't just remove sections 11.1.4 and 11.1.5 can we? We still have tModels for owningBusiness and isReplacedBy and need to document them there I think. Unless I'm missing something, they just need to have evolved V3 keys, together with their current V2 versions, drop the "_V3" from their names, and add the categorizations you currently describe in the CR pertaining to sections 10.5.1-4. You may also recall that from the last telecon, you agreed to update the CR to indicate that there is no ordering dependency on what checks are done in what order. If I wasn't so delinquent in posting minutes that might have been clearer - sorry. As I mentioned offline with you, Luc had a few concerns with the details of the CR. I'm not sure whether the above addresses his concerns, but I'm sure he'll post if there are others. It certainly doesn't address the opinion he raised at the last telecon that the new tModel could be hard to consider as an errata. I still believe as Claus noted during the telecon though that we need a complete solution that doesn't put a burden on users, or else we risk hurting adoption. I think what you've got fits that bill. To others - please post if you have further issues to discuss on CR32. We'd like to have a ballot and get this CR disposed so that we can move forward with the WSDL-TN. My apologies for posting late on this as well, as I've been out of the office for a couple weeks. Thanks, Tom Bellwood Phone: (512) 838-9957 (external); TL: 678/9957 (internal) Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgro up.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]