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: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:04:37 -0500
To: "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "'Joseph Hui'" <jhui@digisle.net>, "Srinivas Pandrangi" <srinivas@ipedo.com>, "Dave Hollander" <dmh@contivo.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEIKEMEBAONGDDNLEKFGEKGDLAA.anne@manes.net>
I like the word "conduce", but Roger makes a valid point.

Working from Dave's 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.

I think that "enables" works here.

Previous renditions of this goal stated that the architecture "ensures" or
"enables" interoperability, and I find this direct correlation of
architecture to interoperability a bit too strong. I don't get the same
level of unease when talking about a "framework that enables the development
of interoperable software products". I think this goal is much more
achievable.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:32 PM
> To: 'Joseph Hui'; Srinivas Pandrangi; Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
> )
>
>
> I think that the word "conduce" is not in the spirit of AG005.  It is,
> indeed, a perfectly good word -- but I don't think that it is a very well
> known one.  I'd rather stick to simple English when at all possible.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Joseph Hui [SMTP:jhui@digisle.net]
> > Sent:	Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:29 PM
> > To:	Srinivas Pandrangi; Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject:	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 Friday, 15 February 2002 14:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:54 GMT