[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] MUWS Comments part 2
I made a bunch of corrections from your annotations in the
doc.
See <wv></wv> below for
more.
William From: Homayoun Pourheidari [mailto:homayoun@bea.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:37 PM To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsdm] MUWS Comments part 2 William,
My comments on part 2. Most of them are typos or cosmetic changes. However, I think state and status capabilities need more work. 3.2.4. I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here? We have a capability that has no properties in it? What about the 2 that you just defined – state and statetransition? I agree that the state values should be defined by the managed resource owner. But how would the manager know where to go to get the state information if it doesn’t know how to ask for it? <wv>the idea is that people are free to use any property that
conveys the correct semantic (like "CurrentState", "DesiredState",
"StateAtTheSameTimeLastYear") but the consumer will be able to recognize either
the element or type used as being the one we define so they know that this
property contains the description of a state. What this state correponds to it
model-specific.</wv>
3.3.1. I disagree with the language that the operational status is "independent of the specific state model used". I think it would be dependent but it is not a direct mapping. <wv>I tried to clarify this
way: "The operational status capability defines a simple representation of the
availability of the resource. This is expressed in terms (defined by MUWS)
independent from the specific state model (defined by domain experts) for the
resource."</wv>
Cheers, H. -- Zhili Zhang wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]