W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > June 2003

Re: On the work of the task force

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:01:39 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030603135454.02c17da8@localhost>
To: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org

Amy,

Thanks for clarifying your concerns.

>I very much want the work of the task force to be grounded in the
>patterns spec [PART2][2].

The IOPs in the meps-vs-iops document[1] are intended to correctly and 
accurately describe the patterns currently in PART2[2].  To the extent that 
they don't, they are wrong and should be corrected.  Please let me know if 
you see errors.

The MEPs in meps-vs-iops[1] are intended to describe alternate patterns 
based on those IOPs, such that any actual sequence of messages that 
conforms to one of the MEPs will also conform to the IOP on which that MEP 
was based.  Some (but not all) of the MEPs are more constraining than the 
IOPs on which they are based.  The reason for describing these MEPs is to 
enable us to discuss their pros and cons more easily and precisely, along 
the lines that you mentioned.

>I very much want to see the work of the group start from an analysis of 
>the weaknesses of the current patterns . . . .

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean, but personally, I would be more 
comfortable if we first had a precise and accurate technical comparison of 
various alternate patterns and pattern styles before we start making value 
judgements about them.  I was assuming that the WG would be better served 
by precisely describing the various alternate patterns and pattern styles 
before we launch into arguments about their relative strengths or 
weaknesses.  This is approach that is outlined in the "Objectives of This 
Task Force"[1], and this is what I've been trying to do so far.

>The tension that I see between detailed specification of patterns and more 
>abstract specifications (such as what we currently have) is that greater 
>detail means, potentially, more patterns, and less reuse of patterns, even 
>when they are substantially similar.

That depends entirely on which patterns are *adopted* into WSDL 1.2.  This 
task force can provide very detailed (precise) specifications of patterns 
in order to rationally discuss them and debate their relative pros and 
cons.  However, once we have done so, the WG could certainly decide to 
*adopt* only those patterns that leave wide latitude.  Nonetheless, it is 
still valuable and helpful (IMO) to make detailed (precise) comparisons of 
the alternatives so that we can best make informed choices.

Do others have thoughts or comments?

1. meps-vs-iops: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/meps-vs-iops_clean.htm
2. PART2: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-patterns.xml



-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 15:01:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:17:39 GMT