read on... I believe it was released and announced ;-)
greg
Martin Chapman wrote:
>whats the plans for pushing a copy to the group?
>We really need something out ASAP.
>
>Martin.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:]
>Sent: 15 June 2004 03:18
>To: Greg Pavlik
>Cc: Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
>Subject: RE: [ws-caf-editors] Latest (final?) WS-Context
>
>
>Here's the spec with the additional edits/comments beyond those that
>Mark already caught. Many of them are editorial and "spec-ese" kinds of
>clarifications for consistency of wording etc.
>
>I think the concerns in the comments are around whether or not
>WS-Context can stand on its own (referencing specs are mentioned in a
>couple of places as if they are required) and some remaining fuzziness
>about the definition of an Activity and its relationship to context and
>the context service.
>
>Let me know if anyone wants to talk on the phone about anything, we can
>use my call number.
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:]
>Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:36 AM
>To: Newcomer, Eric
>Cc: Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
>Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Latest (final?) WS-Context
>
>
>sounds good
>
>Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
>
>Right - the activity exists but I just want the text to be clear that we
>don't create it, only the context for it... Does that make sense?
>
>
>
>Unfortunately I left my marked up copy at home. Will it be ok to send
>the changes this evening, or is that too late?
>
>
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:]
>
>Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:35 AM
>
>To: Newcomer, Eric
>
>Cc: Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
>
>Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Latest (final?) WS-Context
>
>
>
>
>
>If the activity is the execution, then no, we don't manage it. On the
>other hand, what is this context thingy before we start to do any
>operations?
>
>
>
>Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>I had started making a few changes also. Perhaps the best thing for me
>to do is start over with this version.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Everything I spotted was editorial except for one thing, which was a
>statement that we were managing activities. I have seen this also in
>Microsoft material. The difficulty is that we are calling activity an
>abstract notion for which we are managing context. I do not think we
>create or manage the activity itself, do we?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I'll get the rest input as soon as I can.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>From: Mark Little [ mailto:]
>
>
>
>Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:27 AM
>
>
>
>To: Greg Pavlik; ws-caf-editors
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Latest (final?) WS-Context
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Comments in line. I accepted all of the changes and then made some more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mark.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>From: "Greg Pavlik" <mailto:>
><mailto:> <mailto:>
><>
>
>
>
>To: "ws-caf-editors" <mailto:>
><mailto:>
><mailto:>
><>
>
>
>
>Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:36 PM
>
>
>
>Subject: [ws-caf-editors] Latest (final?) WS-Context
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This is the latest revision for the proposed committee draft. I urge you
>
>
>
>to read it carefully with the change bars turned off; please be
>
>
>
>especially diligent in looking for errors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mark, WSDL+Schema on the way for packaging things up for the TC to
>review.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>We're getting close. Thanks to everyone for their hard work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
