[graap-wg] Two more minor comments in the spec.

[Heiko Ludwig]

Jim,

wsag:beforeObserved, wsag:observed, and wsag:afterObserved 

was the state model before the asynchronous additions in the last 
revision. Karl proposed this new state model to accommodate the state of 
an agreement that has not been decided upon yet by the agreement provider. 
Is this right, Karl?

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160,  mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/





Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne at hp.com> 
Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
07/13/2005 03:30 PM

To
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
cc
GRAAP-WG <graap-wg at gridforum.org>
Subject
Re: [graap-wg] Two more minor comments in the spec.






I think Toshi's found something missing here.  I cannot see the resource 
property representing the global agreement state, but perhaps I'm 
missing it.  However, in looking around, I see that the schema in the 
appendix defines agreement states as:
wsag:beforeObserved, wsag:observed, and wsag:afterObserved.

The text seems to say the states are:

pending, observerd, rejected, complete.

Am I missing something, or is this just not consistent at this point. 
Are we agreed with the states defined in 7.1 to the point that the 
schema should be changed?

I've made the change for issue 1 here, and will upload the changed 
version now.

--- Jim

Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:

>
> Hi: Just in case I don't make it to the telecon (I intend to, )
> Here are two more minor comments in the spec.
> 1)Figure 1 has a resource property named relatedAgreements. in it
> 2)Chapter 7 Runtime states has
> 7.1 Agreement States
> 7.2 Service Runtime States
> 7.3 Gurantee States
> Which is fine..
> on the other hand Section 9.5 Port type wsag:Agreement State
> only has
> 9.5.1 Resource Property wsag:ServiceTermStateList
> and
> 9.5.2 Resource Property wsag:GuaranteeTermStateList
>
> only.
> Perhaps another resource property named wsag:AgreementState
> is necessary?
>
> And if it is confusing to have AgreementState in both Port type and 
> Resource Property,
> Perhaps the Port type should be renamed to something like
> Port type wsag:AgreementRuntimeState?
>
> Also,
> 9.5's description
> This port type is not meant to be used as is but instead, its resource 
> properties
> MAY be composed into a domain-specific Agreement port type.
>
> seems confusing for me.
>
> Best regards
> Toshi
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20050714/a3ca6d7b/attachment.html