[infod-wg] FW: Thoughts on INFOD specification - from John Walk

[Chris Kantarjiev]

It seems that this should be in the mailing list archives, but isn't.





__________________________________________________

>From Steve Fisher <S.M.Fisher at rl.ac.uk>
Sent Wednesday, June 15, 2005 08:28:13
To Cecile Madsen <madsen at us.ibm.com>; Susan Malaika <malaika at us.ibm.com>; Chris Kantarjiev <chris.kantarjiev at oracle.com>; Dieter Gawlick <dieter.gawlick at oracle.com>; Abdeslem Djaoui <A.Djaoui at rl.ac.uk>
Subject Thoughts on INFOD specification - from John Walk



Hi,



I attach a note from John Walk where he has attempted to explain the

specification in his own words. He says: "I'm fairly certain my

interpretation is wrong, but I think it might help to show up the

areas where the specification is not getting the message through (no

pun intended)".



Unfortunately I don't think that John will have time to do any more

work on this. One of his more interesting observations is that

subscriptions are rather insignificant.



It will be interesting to see if people share John's view of what the

spec actually means!



Steve










__________________________________________________

Hi,



I attach a note from John Walk where he has attempted to explain the

specification in his own words. He says: "I'm fairly certain my

interpretation is wrong, but I think it might help to show up the

areas where the specification is not getting the message through (no

pun intended)".



Unfortunately I don't think that John will have time to do any more

work on this. One of his more interesting observations is that

subscriptions are rather insignificant.



It will be interesting to see if people share John's view of what the

spec actually means!



Steve








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/infod-wg/attachments/20050627/a7560769/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
Hi,

I attach a note from John Walk where he has attempted to explain the
specification in his own words. He says: "I'm fairly certain my
interpretation is wrong, but I think it might help to show up the
areas where the specification is not getting the message through (no
pun intended)".

Unfortunately I don't think that John will have time to do any more
work on this. One of his more interesting observations is that
subscriptions are rather insignificant.

It will be interesting to see if people share John's view of what the
spec actually means!

Steve


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: infod2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/infod-wg/attachments/20050627/a7560769/attachment.doc