[RUS-WG] Artifact changed: RUS Core IDL Recommendation First Draft

[Gilbert Netzer]

Hi Morris,

I would strongly argue for not having the document in a non-text format 
(something that cant be edited with a standard text editor such as 
emacs) such as Word. Now the XML works really nice in any version 
control system, currently I have it in svn and it is read and editable 
by everybody. The track changes functions causes us big headaches, I 
just remember all the trouble and headaches we had in OMII with the 
deliverable writing. There is by the way a lot of tools to do a diff on 
a html and/or xml document which is a lot better for change tracking as 
it goes to the actual changes and not only the ones you remembered to 
switch the function on.

The other thing that word documents provoke is that they almost always 
get you into a lot of trouble with formatting and stuff. If you really 
want a print-quality format, I would suggest latex, which is proven and 
reliable and it can also take advantage of diff!

Btw. The tracker comments are not automatically sent to the eMail list, 
so I cc this to the rus-wg list if that is ok for you?

Best Regards
Gilbert

SourceForge Administrator wrote:
> artf6015: RUS Core IDL Recommendation First Draft
> 
> Modified on 10/16/2007 by Morris Riedel
> Assigned To: - New: "No user" Old: "Gilbert Netzer"
> 
> Comment was added:
> Hi,
> 
>   interesting document. However we should bring it somehow in a word document that people are able to use the "track changes" function and can comment directly on the document. Usual procedure in other groups.
> 
> Regards,
> Morris
> 
> Respond by visiting:
> http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6015
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Artifact details:-
> 
> Project: RUS-WG
> Tracker: Submit Draft Doc to Chairs
> 
> Group: 
> Status: Open
> Category: 
> Customer: 
> Priority: 1
> Assigned To: No user
> Reported in release: none
> Fixed in release: none
> Estimated Hours: 0
> Actual Hours: 0
> 
> Description: Dear RUS members & chairs,
> 
> I want to submit the first draft of the interface definition language (IDL) specification of the RUS Core.
> 
> This specification is the outcome of the discussions at OGF19 were it was suggested to follow the idea of the ByteIO-WG 
> and split the specification into an abstract part and concrete profile renderings.
> 
> It is basically based on the current OGSA RUS draft 17, with the addition of the suggestions from OGF20 and group 
> discussions. Beyond that I also used the opportunity to add extension points to the current draft, which I would like to
>  suggest for discussion.
> 
> The following changes have been incorporated:
> - listMandatoryElements returns list of QNames instead of empty elements.
> - extractUsageRecords (former extractRUSUsageRecords) returns list of plain UsageRecords, the RUSUsageRecord element is 
> gone.
> - extractRecordHistory added to expose the record history that was exposed via the RUSUsageRecord
> - extractUsageRecords can now also return a WS-Enumeration context to allow extraction of larger result sets
> - incrementUsageRecordPart and replaceUsageRecords have been removed because they can be expressed with 
> modifyUsageRecords
> - modifyUsageRecordPart was extended to become modifyUsageRecords to allow general modification of many usage records 
> with one request
> - deleteSpecificUsageRecords was removed because can be expressed with deleteUsageRecords
> - deleteRecords was renamed to deleteUsageRecords
> 
> New features:
> - All search terms/filters/update expressions were changed to xs:any and now have an URI attribute to allow different 
> query dialects to be used. Currently the specification mandates XPath 1.0 for delete and extract and XQuery Update 
> Facilities for modify.
> - xs:any extension points were added to all operation request and response messages as well as to the record history.
> - The type of operation in the record history is now specified using a URI allowing future and implementor 
> extensiability.
> 
> This document currently is very much a work in progress, some sections are still missing (authors, abstract, 
> contributors, appendix amongst others) and the text can need some more work. However I feel that it is time to present 
> this to the working group for discussion so that we can come to a consent about the general direction and move on from 
> there. 
> 
> Besides wanting to encourage people to critically examine the presented document, I want also to especially encourage 
> expressions of support!
> 
> The document was written using the W3c XMLspec DTD and converted with a stylesheet to xhtml format.
> 
> WARNING: GridForge mangles the file a little bit upon download, so either ignore or remove the faulty comment at the end!
>