RE: [wsdm] RE: DeviceState Taxonomy

Thanks for setting the point straight. 
All the state taxonomies in the primer, for the PDA and for the Printer are
correct.

 

Kirk Wilson

Architect, Development

Office of the CTO

802 765-4337

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Murray, Bryan P.
[mailto:] 

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005
6:29 PM

To: Wilson, Kirk D; Heather
 Kreger

Cc: 

Subject: [wsdm] 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:>