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

RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:26:06 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829085927.02996160@localhost>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Absolutely.  The REST viewpoint should certainly be represented in the WGs 
resulting documents, even if the WG consciously decides to violate the REST 
principles.  It is much better to acknowledge and articulate strong 
alternate opinions head-on than to omit them or shy away from them.  It 
provides a more true and complete picture of the work, and helps the reader 
understand the full context of the decisions that were made.

 From the W3C Process Document section on "W3C's Concensus Policy"[1]:

         "When disagreement is strong, the opinions of the minority should 
be recorded
         alongside those of the majority."

[1]  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Group/Draft.html#Consensus


At 12:10 PM 8/20/2002 -0700, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>. . . .
>
>For the record, I think Mark's idea is basically a good one -- modulo some
>wordsmithing to avoid the "orthodoxy" issue.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David W. Levine [mailto:dwl@watson.ibm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:05 PM
>To: Mark Baker; Francis McCabe
>Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc
>
>
>
>At 02:48 PM 8/20/2002 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> >That's ok too, but it doesn't achieve what I want to achieve;
> >documenting the *differences*.
> >
> >Is that so controversial?
> >
> >We could even call it "Integrating WSA with Web Architecture", just to
> >make reference to our charter.
> >
> >MB
>
>
>Just to be difficult.. Well, no, actually, not just to be difficult.
>
>One of the problems implicit in doing some of this is that what one really
>ought to be doing is comparing against a skinned down version of Roy's
>thesis, extended and reanalyzed for issues beyond hypertext. A huge chunk of
>the work is relevant, but a lot of the contentious interactions occur
>because everyone has a different perception on what's different about "web
>services" as
>opposed to
>simply accessing "hypertextish" resources. Drawing out the differences is
>only possible
>when you have well documented things your are comparing, and good agreement
>on what
>those things are. Roy's thesis is far from a tabula rasa, but people draw
>rather varying picture out of it.
>
>- David
>
>
> >On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > > Rather than a section on standard orthodoxies and heresies, it may
> > > be better to have a section that highlights the `input base' ideas
> > > that the WSA draws from. That way, you can point out the
> > > inheritances from REST, OMA etc. in a way that isn't threatening.
> >
> >MB
> >--
> >Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> >Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> >http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>David W. Levine
>IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
>Autonomic Computing Tooling and Standards

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 11:25:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT