[ogsa-naming-wg] New Version of WS-Naming

[Andreas Savva]

I had a really quick look through this version and a couple of comments are:
- WS-Addressing version 2005/03 is referenced. It should be 2005/08
- Since multiple conformance URIs are defined it would be nice (to the
reader) to list all of them in section 2.2, before the statement on
minimal conformance.

> 2) Change all the copyright and IP stuff. I suggest we age Greg to do
> it for us before public comment.

I can do this update if you want.

Andreas

David Snelling wrote:
> [Bicycle crash boiler plate: I will include this boiler plate in my  
> mails for a few weeks to apologize for terseness in the rest of the  
> mail.  I have a broken finger from the crash on Oct 4th, and typing  
> is hard and possible only in short spurts. Sorry, Dave.]
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Sorry for the delay, but due to the above, I can't spend very long at  
> the keyboard in any one session.
> 
> What I have done:
> 
> 1) Taken a copy of the September version of WS Naming and set the  
> lock on Gridforge.
> 
> 2) Updated dates and version numbers.
> 
> 3) Accepted all existing changes.
> 
> 4) For tracker 5595 from Andreas:
> 
> Item 1: Done.
> 
> Item 2: Done.
> 
> Item 3: this would make sense if this reverenced profiles were  
> external, but since these references are internal to the document, I  
> feel this re-structureing is unnecessary. It would certainly be non- 
> normative. I have not acted on thi item.
> 
> Item 4: This issue has come up before (I thnik in a separate (closed)  
> tracker in WS-Naming, but I am off line. In anycase, clinets can be  
> expected to discover this through the WSDL of the service supporting  
> the resolver or factory portype. Non-normantive text to this effect  
> was added.
> 
> Due to Item 3, I have left the status as "Pending". The WG will need  
> to agree to this negligence on my part.
> 
> 5) For tracker 3070 from Frank:
> 
> Section 4.2 appears to cater for multiple URIs in the EPR. I find it  
> dificult to see why a SOAP message should contain more than one. I  
> have not changed this section. This is consistent with the usage of  
> the Address field as an identifier, since only one wsa:To field isa  
> allowed.
> 
> The Metadata section of the EPR already allows multiple instances of  
> what ever is needed there, so no schema changes were needed.
> 
> The exception was in the fault messages, I enabled the schema with  
> the ability to include multiple EPRs of both types.
> 
> Closure still to be agreed by the WG.
> 
> 6) For tracker 5586:
> 
> As agreed below, I did not change the return value from the function.  
> I did however, add the possibility of returning and EPI as part of  
> the extended error message on a failed resolve. I believe that this  
> ie what we agreed.
> 
> The new document has been posted. A quick call should confirm it all.
> 
> Things left to do:
> 
> 1) Schema check - Michel and anyone else who wants to try.
> 
> 2) Change all the copyright and IP stuff. I suggest we age Greg to do  
> it for us before public comment.
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd