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 11:39:07 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a501c1d9b4$e3ca4830$0100007f@beasys.com>
Mark,

I agree there's an intermediate state, I'm just saying I don't think we can
do anything useful with the web architecture principles in that intermediate
state.  There are some very serious issues that are being talked about on
the TAG, that I *really* don't want us to throw ourselves into.  Like: what
is the relationship between the Web and HTTP GET/POST.  There's a lot of
"gospel reading" and intepreting that we should avoid.

Further, I don't want us to try to create the web architecture principles.
Otherwise we'll be forced to vigorously debate each of the line items of the
web architecture principles/interpretations, and I'm so lazy I only want to
debate that once ;-)

If the TAG has excluded something from the web architectural principles,
then I really don't think the wsawg ought to define that *thing* has being
part of the web architecture.  That's not our job.

I'd really like us to focus on the web services architecture and tie our
discussions of compliance with web architecture to a web arch document,
rather than creating our own interpretation.  That way we can discuss
security, reliability, conversations, workflow and all that fun stuff in the
most expedient manner possible.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: 'Mark Baker'; michael.mahan@nokia.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summary: D-AG0011
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:48:29AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But there's an intermediate state there, which would be that the TAG
> does define Web architecture, just not in time to be of use to us.
> That's why I think that it doesn't hurt for us to take a stab at it
> ourselves with Mike's CSFs, because we have a job to do that must
> continue, even if the TAG doesn't publish a thing.
>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But I also think that it won't cover some of the CSFs that
> are listed.   In
> > this case, the CSFs would be incorrect
>
> Well, I don't believe the TAG should be able to preclude us from
> accepting Web architectural principles that it isn't able to come to
> concensus agreement on.  Though certainly, it will be more
> difficult for
> us to come to concensus on something if the TAG hasn't done so 8-).
>
> 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 15:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT