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

RE: Summary: D-AG0011

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:49:09 -0600
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C59437@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'michael.mahan@nokia.com'" <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Hi Mike,

I think we need to make the interoperability assumption explicit,
at least as a sub-goal. We could have two architectures built to the exact
same design principles and based on same technologies but the applications
to these architectures interoperable:-) (the key thing here is the
definition of 
"technologies"). It would be much easier to make the assumption explicit
to have a debate on what are "technologies!" etc. 


-----Original Message-----
From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:07 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Summary: D-AG0011

Hi Suresh,

I was under the assumption that a WS architecture consistent
with the current web would ensure that the two are interoperable. 
Do you see this differently? I itemized the design principals 
and the implementation technologies to be gain consistency. 
Perhaps that is not sufficient to guarantee interoperability, or 
just that a more explicit statement should be made?

Thanks for the comment.

Mike Mahan, Nokia

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
>Sent: April 04, 2002 04:11 PM
>To: Mahan Michael (NRC/Boston); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Summary: D-AG0011
>Hi Michael,
>I am a bit surprised that "interoperability" is not
>a sub-goal. Wouldn't the lack of such a sub-goal end up with 
>the new web
>compliant web applications not work with existing web applications?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 3:26 PM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: Summary: D-AG0011
>This is the summary of the 'Consistency' goal. Still, very little 
>traction... So most of the below is my fault.
>Original Goal: 
>"To develop a standard reference architecture for web services 
>that is consistent with the existing web and its heterogenous 
>environment and distributed architecture to the greatest extent 
>Proposed Goal:
>"To develop a standard reference architecture for web services 
>that is consistent with the existing web to the greatest extent 
>Proposed Critical Success Factors:
>CF1) The Web Services reference architecture complies with the 
>architectural principals and design goals of the existing web. 
>Derived sub-goals:
>CF1-A) universal identifiers
>CF1-B) simplicity
>CF1-C) opaqueness
>CF1-D) decentralization 
>CF1-E) statelessness
>CF1-F) scalability of component interactions
>CF1-G) generality of interfaces
>CF1-H) immediate deployment of components
>CF1-I) intermediary components to reduce interaction latency
>CF1-J) enforces security
>CF1-K) encapsulate legacy systems
>CF1-L) caching semantics (?)
>CF1-M) platform independence
>CF2) The Web Services reference architecture recommends the use
>of existing web technologies which adhere to the above principals 
>and which provide clear functional coverage of the responsibilities 
>and constraints for a component identified in the reference
>architecure. Derived sub-goals:
>CF2-A) Use of a standard identifier technology (URI)
>CF2-B) Use of a standard transport technology (HTTP/S over TCP/UPD/IP)
>CF3-C) Use of a standard data encoding technology (XML)
>Note that this is a first cut at CSFs. There is assuredly overlap 
>with other goals here. By its nature, this goal is more of a 
>Mike Mahan - Nokia
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 17:49:39 UTC

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