=== on 7 Apr 2016, 15:07:19 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Could you review this spec? Thanks.

=== on 7 Apr 2016, 17:49:47 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] this needs an explanation of _why_ ``++ServiceContract++`` and ``++OperationContract++`` are useless without each other. I'm guessing that will also require a little background on what a ``++ServiceContract++`` is and what an ``++OperationContract++`` is.

=== on 8 Apr 2016, 08:57:59 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] What do you think now?

=== on 8 Apr 2016, 16:05:40 Ann Campbell wrote:
Very good [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 11 Apr 2016, 10:18:49 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I added labels to this rule. Let me know if you don't agree with them.


Also, what does "Partial" completeness mean?

=== on 11 Apr 2016, 13:54:49 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] I've dropped the 'convention' tag which is typically only applied to naming and formatting rules; not to "I think you did something wrong" rules.


"Partial" completion means we're not done writing the rule yet. I've bumped this one up to "full".

