- From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0500
- To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, <public-wsa-refact@w3.org>
Frank, Great start, lots of good stuff... I will give you a list of additional issues to include when I'm done with the current editing pass. Some comments: -- The SOA definition is not consistent with the definition in the document. -- Feature is not really a core concept of the architecture, not in the sense that it is a "thing" within the architecture. It's the definition of a term that can be applied to the architecture (and equally to any architecture), perhaps it would be better to pick another example to illustrate the idea, something more core such as a service, or a description -- Add something about constraints? There are a few listed in the document, such as conformance to Web archtiecture, use of XML Info Set, use of Schemas, etc. -- Should we rename "stakeholder viewpoints" -> "properties"? Eric -----Original Message----- From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:05 PM To: public-wsa-refact@w3.org Subject: Presentation on architecture There are still issues with the presentation. I was not able to incorporate Katia's image because I couldn't separate it. Frank
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 22:36:15 UTC