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

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

I'll add Anne's suggestion to the 'Public Comments' list
Toshi.


Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> 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
>