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

RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:43:23 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E402760596@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:02 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: Carroll, Tom
> Subject: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
Thanks for doing this, it is an excellent "strawman".  Let me
take a few whacks at it ... If I don't mention something,
it means I generally agree with the point as written.

> AG001 ensures the interoperability of web services software 
> products from
> different implementors based on well-defined standards

Isn't that a pretty ambitious goal for a "reference architecture"?
I would think that only the *designs* of software could be
consistent in that they refer to the same concepts e.g., 
"a Web service endpoint" in the same way.

> AG005 provides simplicity and ease-of-use that does not impose high
> to entry for users of web services

Again, I just don't see how a "reference architecture" could 
hope to do this.  
> AG006 addresses the security of web services across 
> distributed domains and
> platforms

Here, we need to be more specific about what "security means."

> AG007 is reliable, and stable, and whose evolution is 
> predictable over time

I'd suggest that there's no point in mentioning what we cannot
control.  If we do a good job on the other goals, and
implementers find it useful, it will be evolve in a predictable manner.
If not, it will end up in the bitbucket of history, end of story.

> AG008 is coherent and consistent in its definition 

The highest priority, IMHO.

> AG009 is aligned with the semantic web initiative at W3C and 
> the overall
> existing web architecture

I'd suggest that the point is to come up with coherent architecture
for web services that uses what is valuable from the semantic web
initiative and web architecture principles, but doesn't treat them
as formal constraints.  It is possible (HIGHLY unlikely, IMHO) that
a coherent and consistent web services architecture could "violate"
some of the web architecture principles as we think we understand them 
today.  To constrain this group too heavily by the current understanding
views on the subject could lead to some quasi-religous debates rather than
a two-way dialog to clarify both the web architecture and web services 
architecture in a fruitful way.  A casual glance at the xml-dist-app or
xml-dev archives should give one reason for caution on this subject.
And a casual glance at the trade press this week should give us pause
about formally tieing the web services and semantic web activities 

> AG011 is consistent with the existing web and its 
> heterogenous environment
> and distributed architecture to the greatest extent possible.

Another EXTREMELY high priority goal IMHO.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 12:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:53 UTC