[graap-wg] condition expression language requirements for WS-Agreement

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Feb 08, Anne Anderson modulated:
...
> This would involve removing the statement that "An example of a generic
> assertion language can be found in [XQUERYX]." in section "4.2.6.2
> Qualifying Condition and Service Level Objective" and the statement that
> "A general purpose constraint language has been proposed as part of the
> XQuery and XPATH language. The XML rendering of this expression
> language, XQueryX, MAY contain a suitable constraint language that can
> be used to phrase constraints involving multiple items." in section
> "5.1.2 Free–form Constraints", along with the subsequent
> "wsag:XQueryXConstraint" extension of "<wsag:Constraint/>".
> 
> Please understand, I am not objecting to XQuery itself, but only to
> suggestions that it may be an appropriate constraint language where
> agreement semantics are needed.  Few WS-Agreement users will understand
> the real implications of the choice of condition expression language
> until they have invested significant time and effort into implementation
> and use.  At least don't lead them down the wrong path while you wait
> for an appropriate path to appear.
> 
> Regards,
> Anne
> 

I would strongly endorse such a change, as well as a replacement text
that mentions a better assertion language.  I think this is one of
those spots where something was stuffed in because previous commentary
had called for more concrete examples...

While we're at it, we SHOULD remove the inappropriate use of "MAY" in
such a recommendation. :-)


karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com