[graap-wg] updated draft

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Hi:

Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> 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.

Same here..


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...
> 

there was but lasted for 10 minutes or so. I think Jim is going to post 
an announcement for meeting on Wednesday.. (evening-night for people in 
Asia.)

Best Regards

Toshi..

-- 
Toshiyuki Nakata
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
+81-44-431-7653
(NEC Internal 8-22-60210)