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

RE: question for Kirill

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA2690206F4977B@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Hi Lofton,
yes I should be on Monday's telcon. 

I believe what JM is pointing out that a technology may not only be
divided into modules but also allow for adding more modules following
certain extensibility framework. Our current definition may leave
impression that a technology always has a closed set of modules.

I think we could add to the note for G5 that spec may allow for
additional modules, should define extensibility framework and
conformance requirements for modules to be added.

An example could be SOAP Messaging Framework (SOAP Part 1) and SOAP
Encodings. SOAP Part 2 defines one SOAP Encoding (also called "Section
5"), a module according to our definition. 

But SOAP Part 1 imposes certain requirements on use of a custom
encoding.
Thanks





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: Kirill Gavrylyuk
> Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: question for Kirill
> 
> 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-requirement
s-
> modules
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0110.html
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 14:04:53 GMT

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