RE: DeviceState Taxonomy

Kirk,

 

The State capability is just a pattern for actual 
capabilities to be extended from state for specific resources. State does not 
define any proeprties or operations - it only defines types which must be used 
by capabilities extended from State. As such, the property name used in an 
extended State is not specified by MUWS. This means DeviceState in the primer is 
of type StateType, but it does not need to have the name State or to be a child 
of a State element.

 

I agree that the example in 3.2.4.1 is confusing. 
Heather we should add an action item to fix this in the 
spec.

 

Bryan

From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:] 

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:28 AM
To: Wilson, Kirk 
D; Heather Kreger
Cc: Murray, Bryan P.
Subject: RE: 
DeviceState Taxonomy

Question RE the 
DeviceState.  The RP instance doc contains the <pda:DeviceState> 
(which, as I commented below) you need to define in the RPDoc schema).  My 
question is, should this element be enclosed in a <muws2:State> 
element.  I find the spec somewhat ambiguous on this point.  As it 
stands, the instance doc reports a capability, MUWS2 State, but there is no 
property that could be retrieved or queried against this capability (even though 
there is a GED State defined in the 
schema).

 

I guess the short 
answer is, “Not unless the DeviceState element is defined as a child of 
<State> in the schema.”  Thus, the question is, Should it be?  
As I say, the spec is vague—the example in 3.2.41 of  MUWS2 would almost 
seem to imply that it should.  Any thoughts or 
clarifications?

 

On a related topic, in 
2.6 (in both v. 12 and v. 12.hk), a grammatical point (maybe Mark Ellison also 
pick this up): in the second set of numbered bullets, bullets 2 & 3, “like 
you would” should be “as you would”.  (“Like” takes an object, “as” takes a 
verb phrase.)

 

Kirk 
Wilson
Architect, 
Development

Office of the 
CTO

802 
765-4337

 

-----Original 
Message-----
From: 
Wilson, Kirk D 

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 
2005 5:12 PM
To: 
Heather Kreger
Cc: Bryan 
Murray ()
Subject: DeviceState 
Taxonomy

 

Heather,

 

I reviewed your XML for defining the 
DeviceState.  It looks good, but you should have an 
element:

 

<xs:element name=DeviceState 
type=”pda:DeviceStateType” />

 

Also, I would recommend adding a 
reference to sect. 6.1 before you present the schema, e.g., “Here is an example 
of how you would that for DeviceState (see sect. 6.1 for further information on 
how this taxonomy is defined).”  Something like that.

 

Finally, your state chart really 
should have the initial state, a big black dot and termination state, a black 
dot with a circle around it, represented.  The initial state should 
probably go into the OFF state and the termination state exit from the OFF 
state.  Just to make it look like “official” UML J.

 

Kirk 
Wilson
Computer Associates

Architect, 
Development
Office of the CTO
Tele: + 1 802 765-4337
Fax:   
+ 1 802 765-4339
<mailto:>