Closing in on v3.0.1 Errata - RE: [uddi-spec] One last list of proofing items for 3.0.1

Title: Versioning Value Set TN updated

Thanks Tony for all this work. I've just 
reviewed your proposed edits and the related mail threads. I've posted your docs 
on Kavi at the following locations:

  

  
v3.0.1 edits by Tony Roger 
  - Tony's document updates (with some 
  cleanup by myself): http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/3582/uddi-v3.0.1-20030809-tr-edits.zip 

  

  
Open issues identified by Tony 
  Rogers - text 
  file listing open issues: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/3581/tony-rogers-open-issues.txt

  

  
Proposed alternative wording to the v3-to-v2 
  key conversion algorithm (10.1.1) - suggested alternative wording for the algorithm 
  outline in 10.1.1: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/3580/V2DerivedKey.doc

Here is what I propose:

 

a. Re edits to v3.0.1: Tom and I would 
like to have a "Editors/Authors/anyone else concerned" telecon to walk through 
your proposed edits and open issues above. 
This will allow us to do a focused review of the changes without taken up the 
TC's time. I'll add this proposal to the agenda so we may discuss it 
further.

 

b. Re: your proposed alternative wording 
to v3-to-v2 key conversion algorithm (10.1.1) I'll add an 
agenda item to Tuesday's call to close on this. The last mail on this topic: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200309/msg00002.html

Luc 
Cl幦ent
Microsoft
Co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec TC 

From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 00:09
To: 

Subject: [uddi-spec] One last list of 
proofing items for 3.0.1

Section 10, first 
para. The footnote numbered 34 contains "principal" - should be 
"principle".

 

Section 11.2.1.3 - 
why is the name "inquiry_v3" but the key "v3_inquiry"? It's inconsistent. The 
same applies to all of the API tModels.

 

Section 11.4.7 and 
11.4.8 - why are these the only two sort order find qualifiers with names 
containing "sortorder" instead of "findqualifier"? This is 
inconsistent.

 

Sections 11.4.19 and 
11.4.20: should we add mention of the fact that these find qualifiers also 
affect the list of serviceInfo elements returned by find_business? Perhaps the 
additional sentence: "Note that the use of this find qualifier causes 
find_business to remove any serviceInfo elements that do not satisfy the search 
from the list of results." or something similar?

 

Section 11.4.21.4 
last sentence of first para: "...using services projections..." should be 
"...using service projections...".

 

Section 11.5 first 
para contains: "Beyond the tModels defined here, 
additional tModels are defined to help register within leading industry encoding 
schemes and standard protocols." This is phrased very awkwardly, and could be 
rephrased to be more easily read.

 

Section 11.5.1.2 
last sentence "...have keys derived form..." should be "have keys derived 
from...".

 

 

I've proofed up to, 
but not including the appendices. Does someone else care to do 
them?

 

 

NOT A PROBLEM: I 
have checked all the derived keys in chapter 11 - they match the output of the 
algorithm (that I got working thanks to John Colgrave).

 

Tony Rogers