SourceForge : Post

Project: Editor Discussion > REC: WS-Agreement spec > Semantics of related agreements ill-defined > List of Posts

Forum Topic - Semantics of related agreements ill-defined: (4 Items)

View: as

Update

Heiko Ludwig

01/26/2005 2:15 PM

post4539

Semantics of related agreements ill-defined

This comment reflectes the discussion of the specification at GGF 12. The content  is taken from the minutes and the 
discussion on the GRAAP mailing list subsequent  to the GGF. This comment does not represent my personal concern or that
 of  IBM. 

The semantics of related agreements is ill-defined. It is not clear whether the related agreements of the context relate
 to agreements that exist already and whose terms hold, whether they are meant to hold amendments after the agreement is
 established or for any other purpose.

Toshiyuki Nakata

03/18/2005 4:51 AM

post4540

From the comment list

Related agreements agreed last weeks to be taken out, but some discussion was still going on.  Not enough further 
argument to
change this decision.  **Could be a primer issue as used in a service description term.

Toshiyuki Nakata

02/07/2005 11:44 PM

post4541

related Agreements

Apologies for my cryptic message above.
If we include related agreeements in the spec.,  I think 
we would need to address besides the general comment I made in GGF12 above are:
1)Do we make it possible to address SDT's of related agreements?
(I had assumed so. So had brought the issue in GGF12).
2)How do we specify the name scope of SDTs of related agreements? (name of SDTs within an agreement is specified
to be unique but we cannot guarantee it for the other agreements.)

Best regards
Toshiyuki Nakata

Toshiyuki Nakata

01/26/2005 4:18 PM

post4542

Related Agreement

I had assumed that related agreement had been dropped from
the final spec.
Is my undertstanding incorrect?
Best Regards

Return