W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

Re: NEW ISSUE: Dependencies with other groups

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:30:00 -0800
Message-Id: <dcbced4295f697000d3c1d0a9e0547d4@bea.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>

David,

Identifying the dependancies of a WG is generally done through its 
charter and optionally a requirements document, along with 
co-ordination with other Working Groups.

Our charter does not identify any specific dependancies, and does not 
list a requirements document among our deliverables. As part of our 
Last Call preparation, I circulated a list of Working Groups from whom 
we would seek review, and have co-ordinated a review schedule with 
their Chairs. No other group, to date, has informed us of a dependancy.

As such, our dependancies have been identified. Last Call is an 
opportunity for other groups to examine the drafts to see if they 
satisfy both stated and unstated dependancies; gathering requirements 
(which is effectively what your suggestion implies) at this point would 
be counter-productive.

If there are other groups whose review you believe would be beneficial, 
please forward the Last Call announcement to them.

A separate issue is whether the Working Group believes that they have 
been satisfied, and Members will have the opportunity to say so during 
our Last Call discussions (and ultimately through voting).

Because of this, and because you do not make a concrete proposal, but 
rather suggest a course of action, I am not adding this to the Issues 
List.

Regards,


On Mar 24, 2005, at 2:02 PM, David Hull wrote:

> Title: Dependencies with other groups
>
> Description: As an entrance criterion for Last Call, we must "Indicate 
> which dependencies with other groups the Working Group believes it has 
> satisfied, and report which dependencies have not been satisfied."  
> There are a number of working groups which depend on or may depend on 
> WSA, including WSDL, XMLP and the Async task force within W3C, as well 
> as WSN, WSE, WSRM, WS-Transfer, WS-Enumeration and possibly others 
> outside W3C which are known to rely on WSA.
>
> In order to indicate which dependencies we believe we have and have 
> not satisfied, we need a list of known dependencies, characterized by 
> what part of the spec is involved, and how.
>
> Justification:  
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#last-call
>
> While not strictly necessary, an account of dependencies from 
> specifications outside W3C would provide a valuable sanity check of 
> the general utility of WSA, given the position of WSA as a fundamental 
> building block.
>
> Target: core, SOAP
>
> Proposal: Produce a list of known dependencies with other 
> specifications, including information as to the nature of the 
> dependency and which parts of WSA are involved (e.g., EPRs, MAPs, SOAP 
> addressing module. etc.).


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 18:30:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT