In Section 7 of the WSRF Resource Properties Specification, the question of concurrent reads and writes to a WS-Resource
 is dealt with.  It states: "This specification is not prescriptive with respect to policy that governs concurrent  read
 or write access to a WS-Resource."  It goes on to say that: "The scope and extent of the isolation  of changes made to 
the WS-Resource is an implementation dependent responsibility  of the WS-Resource itself. The WS-Resource must also take
 on the responsibility for  the scope and extent to which notifications of changes to the WS-Resource are  isolated and 
made observable."

The WS-Agreement specification currently says nothing about the consistency of the guarantee term state or service state
 information (S8.2 and S8.3).  The WS-Agreement spec should either place additional constraints to make sure that all WS
-Agreement implementations give a consistent view, or should explicitly state that the user will need to use WS-
AtomicTransaction to achieve this consistent view (as Section 7 of the WSRF-RP specification suggests).

If this second route is taken, WS-AtomicTransaction needs to be added to Section 1.1.1 as a dependency, with suitable 
explanatory text.