[INFOD-WG] Status of spec

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

Hi,

We have had a few list minute problems. Currently I have a small query
about 5.11 (see below) and Ronny has noticed that the WSDL for the
notifications has been overlooked. I don't want to release the document
while it has such an omission. Is Vijay around to fix this quickly - if
not does anybody feel compeent to provide the missing WSDL. 

Note that I have to provide a report for the data area meeting on Monday
at 16:00 (UTC+1) and I would much prefer to say that we have resubmitted
the document rather than saying that we are about to do so! Can we make
it?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher, SM (Steve) 
Sent: 06 May 2007 15:21
To: 'Ronny Fehling'; Vijay Dialani
Cc: shankarm at ornl.gov
Subject: RE: Version 12 checked in

Ronny,

I still don't understand 5.11. You have a "choice" element to ensure
that there is at least one 
ConsumerEntryReference or DynamicConsumerConstraint. However when the
registry wants the publisher to stop publishing then it it is
permissible for these both to be empty - see lines 1761-1763. Otherwise
I happy with your changes.

Vijay,

Are you going to be able to provide the missing WSDL very soon?

Steve



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronny Fehling [mailto:ronny.fehling at oracle.com] 
> Sent: 06 May 2007 05:07
> To: Fisher, SM (Steve)
> Cc: shankarm at ornl.gov; Vijay Dialani
> Subject: Re: Version 12 checked in
> 
> did the changes.
> found several additional errors in the xml...
> also, i saw that the wsdl for  pub, sub, consumer notify is 
> missing. - 
> vijay?
> 
> r
> 
> Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found when reading through sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 that 
> we were using
> > the name PublisherReference and ConsumerReference when it 
> should have
> > been PublisherEntryReference and ConsumerEntryReference. I have
> > corrected this in section 3
> >
> > I presume that for the notification from publisher to 
> consumer however
> > that this really is the PublisherReference - or is it?
> >
> > Having added these I may have made sections 5.11 to 5.13 
> inconsistent.
> > However 5.11 looks very wrong as it has 2 sections called
> > StaticConsumerReference.
> >
> > Can one of you who is better at XML than I, check that 5.11 
> to 5.13 in
> > consistent with chapter 3 please
> >
> > Steve
> >   
>