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

RE: question for Kirill

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:27:47 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030418142045.01c19610@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>, "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

This explanation helps.  I think that SpecGL covers this type of 
extensibility in 2 ways -
1.  In G9 extensibility.
CP9.4 define a uniform mechanism to create an extension -- so if the spec 
provides a way to define modules (or profiles), then it is doing this 
checkpoint.
CP9.7 relationship and interaction to other DoV -- here is where the spec 
talks about extensibility framework to allow adding more modules
2.  In G5 Modules
CP5.2 define relationship and interaction to other DoV - here is where the 
spec talks about Modules and extensibility.

However, I'm not opposed to writing something in G5, along the lines of 
Kirill's explanation - it may help readability and understandability.

By the way,  Doesn't this make CP5.2 and 9.7 redundant?

--lynne

--Lynne



At 02:04 PM 4/18/2003, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

>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 14:28:11 GMT

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