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

Would "conduce" be an acceptable alternative to the
"enable" and "ensure" camps on AG001?

I'm of the opinion that: ensuring interoperability may or
may not be the group's mandate; but surely it's something
worthy of best effort.

Thanks_to_daniel_for_the_strawman += 1;

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
=========================================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivas Pandrangi [mailto:srinivas@ipedo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:02 PM
> To: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for
> WSAWG)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> --Srinivas
> -----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
> conform
> 	to the spec. There was always the ultimate threat of revoking
> the
> 	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
> value
> 	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
> would
> 	run counter to the W3C Quality goals (although I am not expert
> on
> 	these.) 
> 
> 
> 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
> vendors
> 	and provides a defensible basis for conformance and
> interoperability
> 
> 	test suites.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Dave Hollander
> Contivo, Inc.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 19:29:17 UTC