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

RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG)

From: Srinivas Pandrangi <srinivas@ipedo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:01:51 -0800
Message-ID: <EFBAE6044AC0CD41981E01582A1E94AB06027E@alibaba.ingine.com>
To: "Dave Hollander" <dmh@contivo.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Let me thank Daniel as well. Kicking off these discussions is the
toughest part, and you have done it so well.

As for AG001, my understanding of the charter of this working group is
that we will be defining an architecture at a rather coarse granularity,
and leave the task of producing detailed specifications to other working
groups. Is it our mandate to ensure that all products that implement
these various specs will interoperate? IMHO, no, but if yes, I think it
will be quite a task. I would like to voice my preference for "enable"
as opposed to "ensure" as suggested in the telcon.

From my past experience, I have seen situations where some organization
produces specs, and some other organization works towards bringing
interoperability to the products implementing the specs (bodies like
IMC, ICSA etc come to mind). If things work out WSIO can play that role
for web services.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:34 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG)

First, I would really like to thank Daniel for putting together
such a complete and useful starter set of goals. 

Second, I suggest the we need to scope the level of our activity before
we can get the wording correct on AG001. 

1) Are we responsible for ensuring interoperability? If so, how do we
	enforce it? Does W3C or this WG want to create an escalation 
	process with which to address identified violators?

	I worked with Philips and Sony on the original CD specifications
	and implementations. We owned the license to that technology and
	would have private conversations with licensees that did not
	to the spec. There was always the ultimate threat of revoking
	license.  Good system, but beyond what I think we are dealing
	with here.

2) Do we want to create the complete architectural framework that if
	conformed to will assure interoperability?  If so, do we want to

	arbitrate disputes?

	This is my perfered position. This is a middle ground that I 
	believe is within our ability to deliver yet still delivers
	to the community.

3) Do we want to publish an architectural framework that will be used
	in conjunction with other standards and frameworks?

	I think this is too weak and ineffectual. I also believe this
	run counter to the W3C Quality goals (although I am not expert

If we choose (2), then I would propose the following wording:

[AG001-a] provides a complete reference framework that encourages the
	development of interoperable software products from multiple
	and provides a defensible basis for conformance and

	test suites.

Dave Hollander
Contivo, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 19:02:08 UTC

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