W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Summary: D-AG0011

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:48:29 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009701c1d9ad$d1f50570$0100007f@beasys.com>
My reason for dropping the CSF's is that I can't see us doing anything with
them.  In the short term, we're always going to know that the TAG is working
away.  So I think we're kind of frozen in evaluating our stuff against the
web architecture in the short term.  In the longer term, the TAG will have
either defined the web architecture or it won't.  If the TAG does define the
web architecture, then we can evaluate.  If the TAG doesn't define the web
architecture, then there's nothing to evaluate against - so we'd have to
drop the CSFs.

Just seems we can't use them standalone in the short or the long term.

On the issue of schedule, I don't really have one for the web arch document.
I can say that we've started a number of technical summaries - what is a
URI, what is a document, what is REST, etc. - as well as an integration of
them.  One of the reasons why this lack of schedule has occured is that the
issues and documentation all seem intermixed - we start the document and
then some new issues arise or we start on an issue and then it affects the
document.  BTW, I consider this a good thing, it's about time there was this
kind of work.  We're kind of proceeding stepwise right now, 1 week on
issues, 1 week on documentation.

My personal - definitely not speaking for the TAG - guess is that we'll have
a web arch document ready for public review in the June time frame.

But I also think that it won't cover some of the CSFs that are listed.   In
this case, the CSFs would be incorrect - we might have evaluated against
them but they aren't part of the defined web architecture.  That's assuming
that we actually would evaluate against the CSFs, and I'm not sure when we
actually do that evaluation and in what form - but that's a different issue


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:26 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: michael.mahan@nokia.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summary: D-AG0011
> Dave,
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 04:59:02PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > I'm dubious about the success factors.  They seem to be an
> attempt to
> > summarize the principles of the web architecture from an
> "ilities" and a
> > technical spec perspective.  These things are up to the TAG to
> > document/define.  I would suggest that the critical success
> factors should
> > be more along the lines of:
> >
> > CF1: The Web Services reference architecture complies with
> the architectural
> > principals and design goals of the Web:
> > CF1-A: as defined by the work products that the TAG
> produces that define the
> > web architecture.
> I like Mike's success factors, but I understand that we
> probably should
> be referencing the TAG's work.
> What if we said that those success factors should be used
> until the TAG
> publishes its view?  I don't know ther schedule, so maybe you
> could fill
> us in as to whether this is necessary.
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 13:50:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC