[graap-wg] updated draft

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Apr 05, Toshiyuki Nakata loaded a tape reading:
> Another tiny question
> 9.5	Port Type wsag:AgreementState
> 
> Is this really Port Type or should it be moved to Resource Property 
> within 9.4	Port Type wsag:Agreement ?
> 
> Best Regards
> 

I was hoping someone could explain to me why it was separated. :-) I
think that happened during the time I was away from GRAAP-WG last
year...

I think a general question is whether PendingAgreement should be an
add-on to an Agreement portType and, likewise, whether
PendingAgreementFactory should be an add-on to AgreementFactory. If
so, I think the shared states should be RPs on Agreement and
AgreementFactory, respectively. If not, I think there should be
separate AgreementState and AgreementFactoryState RPs that can be
included in the RPs for each of the four disjoint portTypes.

I prefer treating the Pending variants as add-ons rather than disjoint
options. Remembering that WS and WSRF treat portType names as somewhat
inconsequential, this would show up as "directed" implications that if
a particular operation or RP appears, others MUST (or SHOULD?) appear
in the port as well.


karl

p.s. was there a call today?  I never saw any announcement nor
minutes...

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com