> Requirements may make no definition. Properties can. Ok, I'll buy that. But in that case, I'd say that the definition that Steve and I came up with also uses properties. I'd also say that these form a necessary and sufficient definition, while your properties, IMHO, creep into things that aren't necessary for a definition, though they may certainly be considered requirements on an architecture for supporting them. Is that clearer? > Anyway, I did state my reasoning behind the def-by-properties > tack and would rather leave it to the group's consensus than > protract a WS-Def debate that is widely known for being, > well, protracting. Sounds good. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.comReceived on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 03:02:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:54 GMT