RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)

Cindy McNally

Philippe,

I believe that this is a substantive issue that should be reconsidered.  I
will post a follow-up citing technical arguments and a proposed change.  
Please note that two related issues were never formally addressed by the
group:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0027.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0036.html

Also, from a procedural standpoint, should my follow-up be worded as a
'formal objection' or would that occur after reconsideration by the
workgroup, i.e. assuming the issue is closed again with no action?


>From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>CC: [hidden email]
>Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)
>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:09:55 +0000
>
>Cindy,
>
>the Web Services Addressing Working Group would like to move Web
>Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata to Candidate Recommendation. Since
>the Group decided, after due considerations, to close your issue with no
>action [1], we'd like to hear from you and know if you're ok with us
>moving forward or if you would like the Group to reconsider it. We'd
>appreciate if you can tell us your position asap. Failing to hear from
>you by June 21, we would request the Director to move forward,
>
>Thank you,
>
>Philippe
>
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0000.html
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Who's that on the Red Carpet? Play & win glamorous prizes.
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=REDCARPET_hotmailtextlink3


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)

Bob Freund

Cindy,
>From now on, we will be treating this as a formal objection due to the
current phase of this specification.

Would it be possible for you to issue a proposal for your issue today
before the call scheduled for 16:00 Eastern?  
If it would be convenient for you, I would like to invite you to attend
that call so that you may discuss your proposal with the group directly.

We hope to progress the specification by early July, so we hope that
this can be dealt with expeditiously.
I will separately send an email to Mr. Wolff inviting him to today's
call as well.
Thank you
-bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:public-ws-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Cindy McNally
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:46 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 -
> Metadata)
>
>
> Philippe,
>
> I believe that this is a substantive issue that should be
reconsidered.
> I
> will post a follow-up citing technical arguments and a proposed
change.

> Please note that two related issues were never formally addressed by
> the
> group:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
> addressing/2007Jan/0027.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
> addressing/2007Mar/0036.html
>
> Also, from a procedural standpoint, should my follow-up be worded as a
> 'formal objection' or would that occur after reconsideration by the
> workgroup, i.e. assuming the issue is closed again with no action?
>
>
> >From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]>
> >To: [hidden email]
> >CC: [hidden email]
> >Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 -
> Metadata)
> >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:09:55 +0000
> >
> >Cindy,
> >
> >the Web Services Addressing Working Group would like to move Web
> >Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata to Candidate Recommendation. Since
> >the Group decided, after due considerations, to close your issue with
> no
> >action [1], we'd like to hear from you and know if you're ok with us
> >moving forward or if you would like the Group to reconsider it. We'd
> >appreciate if you can tell us your position asap. Failing to hear
from

> >you by June 21, we would request the Director to move forward,
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >Philippe
> >
> >[1]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-
> comments/2007Jun/0000.html
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Who's that on the Red Carpet? Play & win glamorous prizes.
>
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=REDCARPET_hotmailtextl
> ink3


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)

Cindy McNally
In reply to this post by Cindy McNally
Hi Bob,

Unfortunately, I cannot attend the call, but hopefully the attached response
will be sufficient.  Thanks.

>From: "Bob Freund" <[hidden email]>
>To: "Cindy McNally" <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
>CC: <[hidden email]>
>Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata)
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:24:05 -0400
>
>Cindy,
>From now on, we will be treating this as a formal objection due to the
>current phase of this specification.
>
>Would it be possible for you to issue a proposal for your issue today
>before the call scheduled for 16:00 Eastern?
>If it would be convenient for you, I would like to invite you to attend
>that call so that you may discuss your proposal with the group directly.
>
>We hope to progress the specification by early July, so we hope that
>this can be dealt with expeditiously.
>I will separately send an email to Mr. Wolff inviting him to today's
>call as well.
>Thank you
>-bob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:public-ws-
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Cindy McNally
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:46 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc: [hidden email]
> > Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 -
> > Metadata)
> >
> >
> > Philippe,
> >
> > I believe that this is a substantive issue that should be
>reconsidered.
> > I
> > will post a follow-up citing technical arguments and a proposed
>change.
> > Please note that two related issues were never formally addressed by
> > the
> > group:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
> > addressing/2007Jan/0027.html
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
> > addressing/2007Mar/0036.html
> >
> > Also, from a procedural standpoint, should my follow-up be worded as a
> > 'formal objection' or would that occur after reconsideration by the
> > workgroup, i.e. assuming the issue is closed again with no action?
> >
> >
> > >From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]>
> > >To: [hidden email]
> > >CC: [hidden email]
> > >Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 -
> > Metadata)
> > >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:09:55 +0000
> > >
> > >Cindy,
> > >
> > >the Web Services Addressing Working Group would like to move Web
> > >Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata to Candidate Recommendation. Since
> > >the Group decided, after due considerations, to close your issue with
> > no
> > >action [1], we'd like to hear from you and know if you're ok with us
> > >moving forward or if you would like the Group to reconsider it. We'd
> > >appreciate if you can tell us your position asap. Failing to hear
>from
> > >you by June 21, we would request the Director to move forward,
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >
> > >Philippe
> > >
> > >[1]
> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-
> > comments/2007Jun/0000.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Who's that on the Red Carpet? Play & win glamorous prizes.
> >
>http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=REDCARPET_hotmailtextl
> > ink3
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/

response.html (11K) Download Attachment