W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

question for Kirill

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:08:31 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030418104832.028a4680@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: "kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Kirill,

I wonder if you could take a minute to help clarify something in Web Services?

Jonathan Marsh submitted LC issue #97 [1], which reads:

>  comment about "Guideline 5 Address the use of modules to divide the 
> technology." [2] : Unlike G4, which notes that profiles may be a point of 
> extension, G5 does not consider modules to be a point of extension. In 
> the web services world, "modules" certainly are a point of extension, and 
> so have rules for defining new modules (just as, in G4, there are 
> assertions associated with rules for defining new profiles). The document 
> should recognize this.

Today's issue processing plan [3] contains this:

>[...]
>> >
>> > #97:  "Modules as extension points"  -- I don't understand what he 
>> means by
>> > "point of extension" [This issue is grouped into the
>> > profiles/modules/levels group]
>>
>>Well, in Web Services, you can swap a module for a new one, provided
>>you've followed some rules in defining the new module. It is an
>>extension mechanism, indeed.
>
>Hmmm... you can swap a module of your own for one of the standardized 
>modules?  And does your own module contain standard technical features, or 
>extension functions of your own?  I don't know much about Web 
>services.  It would be interesting to see a simple example explained.  Any 
>case, it sounds different from "Rules for profiles".  It sounds like the
>
>Proposal.  Deal with it under "Extensibility", "Prof/mod/lev", or 
>whatever.  Try to get clearer explanation and/or examples from one of our 
>WS-savvy members.

We discussed briefly and agree that we don't understand the extensibility 
mechanism that JM describes, and some suspect that JM (and Web Services) is 
using modularization and modules in a different sense than we are.

Can you send a short email -- compare WS modularization concept to ours, 
and briefly describe this extensibility mechanism that he alludes to?

Btw, will you be on Monday telecon (by the end of which we *may* get to 
this issue)?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x97
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/#Gd-group-requirements-modules
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0110.html
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 13:06:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT