Jacques Durand wrote:
> Tom:
> inline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:05 AM
> To: Jacques Durand
> Cc: WSRM (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93
>
>
> Jacques Durand wrote:
>
> > Here is my suggested edits for spec 0.93, covering Sections 1 and 2.
> > -Jacques
> >
> > 1.--------------------------
> > Section 1.6: "Examples of Messages..."
> > This section should appear much further in the doc
> > after the protocol elements have been described in detail.
> > No reader will expect to see these examples here, or to understand them
> > that early...
> >
> How about at the end of section 3?
>
> <JD> yes .
>
> > 2.--------------------------
> >
> > Section 1.
> > (from Tue 3 meeting minutes)
> > RM Capability Text not yet put in the spec.
> >
> I thought we agreed to wait until resolution of wsdl annotation before
> adding the capability section.
>
> <JD> OK, but was I mislead by minutes of Tue 3 meeting?
>
> > 3.--------------------------
> >
> > Section 2.1: "Overview of Messaging Model"
> > Propose to replace the subsection titles (e.g. "Request/Response
> > Messaging Model")
> > with "Request/Response Signaling Pattern", because Messaging Model
> > designates the
> > whole set of the three types of signaling described here (reusing the
> > term
> > Messaging model to name parts of the "Messaging Model" is confusing.
> > Or we should at least title "Messaging Models". But I think "Model"
> > should be
> > the whole set.).
> >
> Signaling pattern is a new term which would need to be defined., I
> prefer the plural "models". Signalling connotes telecom mechanisms,
> like ss7 to me.
>
> <JD> that would at least be more consistent. I would still contend
> that "signaling" is also used in messaging (e.g. Rosettanet).
>
> > Propose also to replace:
> > "There are three ways to send back Acknowledgment message or Fault
> > message as
> > described as follows:"
> > with:
> > "There are three ways to do signaling, i.e. send back an
> > Acknowledgment message or
> > a Fault message. They are called here "signaling patterns""
> > As well as at other places in this section.
> >
> We already have the term Reply pattern. Are you suggesting to change
> the name to signalling pattern?
>
> <JD> no, not at all. But now that you mention it, it seems to me that
> these "Messaging Models" are nothing else than our "Reply Patterns"...
>
I think this terminology is good. Perhaps we should defer the name
change until after the TC review.
>
> So shouldn't we use in fact "Messaging Reply Pattern" (English expr,
> not the element name ReplyPattern) to designate each of the three models,
> in this Messaging Model section (instead of my Signaling Patterns)?
> At the very least the current spec is guilty of not explicitly
> refering to each
> of these "messaging models" when introducing the reply patterns.
>
> Jacques
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
