[graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]

[Oliver Wäldrich]

Hi Toshi,

To 2.)
The ContinuingFaultType is used in the AgreementFactory and the PendingAgreementFactory. Therefore it could/would make sense to leave it in the schema if it will be present in the final version (I don't know what the opinion of the others to the ContinuingFault topic is). But since the faults are more related to the specific port types respective the definition of its operation than to the Agreement protocol itself, I see the fault definition more in the wsdl files (at least this is just a question of flavor). 
By the way, in e.g. the wsrf specification they have chosen a different way, they created just separate schema and wsdl-files, where all the wsrf-bf derived custom faults (e.g. ResourceUnknown, ResourceUnavailable) are specified.


To 3.)
With this I meant the Agreement State Types Schema. WSRF-BaseFaults and WS-Addressing are not referenced in the schema (and should be removed).


Best Regards
Oliver

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg at ggf.org] Im Auftrag von Toshiyuki Nakata
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2006 10:25
An: 'Wolfgang Ziegler'; 'Jim Pruyne'; 'GRAAP-WG'
Betreff: RE: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]

Hi:
1)> AgreementSchemaTypes:
> wsa-Namespace is not used (should be removed)

OK.

>2) wsrf-bf: fault section could be moved to wsdl, therefore 
> eliminating the dependency to wsrf-bf in the xml-schema (only 
> in wsdl).
>

I am not sure whether below could be moved to wsdl or not.
Someone please comment.

On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that 
we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all?

	<!-- ////// fault section -->
  <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType">
    <xs:complexContent>
	<xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/>
    </xs:complexContent>
  </xs:complexType>
  <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/> 

3)> AgreementAcceptanceSchemaTypes:
> Namespaces wsa and wsrf-bf should be removed since they were 
> not used in the schema.

Uh.. do you mean Agreement Acceptance Port Type WSDL or Agreement State
Types Schema?

Best Regards 
Toshi.

PS will there be a telecon tonight?
-----
Toshiyuki Nakata 中田　登志之
Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 
1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, 
Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan 
Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035)
Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg at ggf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Ziegler
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:49 PM
> To: Jim Pruyne; Nakata Toshi; GRAAP-WG
> Subject: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Here are some comments from my colleague Oliver:
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> -- 
>            Wolfgang Ziegler    www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html
>      Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific 
> Computing (SCAI)
>             Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany
>                 Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258
> 
>                CoreGRID Network of Excellence   www.coregrid.net
>                   Collaboration Gateway   www.coregrid.net/cg
>      Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling   
> www.coregrid.net/irms
>