[infod-wg] Comments on spec

[Chris Kantarjiev]

I started my review by drawing UML for the interfaces. That's uploaded (into the 
same file as the car dealer sequence diagram I mentioned yesterday) with a 
partially populated object model that mostly matches the current spec.

I'll have more specific comments in the next few days, but I'll remark overall 
that the spec is very inconsistent in terms of naming conventions, 
capitalization conventions, and references between sections 2 and 3. In 
particular, since we're defining a wsinfod namespace, why do so many things 
still begin their names with infod?

The whole object/entity/message/interface distinction space is *very* clouded in 
the spec. Trying to draw this up makes that painfully clear. I'm not very good 
with UML; I'd be tickled if someone would look at what I've done, even at this 
early stage - I'll continue to work on it.

chris