- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:58:57 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I took the action item to seek consensus on the remaining draft CSFs
and requirements for AG003.
Below is the list of items that need discussion and more importantly
agreement.
For most of them, I was surprised that there wasn't agreement. I would
urge people disagreeing with them to speak up.
| * D-AG003 Web-friendly
| The Web Services Architecture must be consistent with the current
| and future evolution of the World Wide Web.
I am not surprised that there wasn't consensus on this. We are
designing Web technologies, and the charter explicitly calls for
it[1]:
* The Web services architecture will need to be cleanly integrated
in the Web architecture: Web services should be addressable
resources, results of operations which do not have side-effects
should be cacheable, etc.
FWIW, I would rephrase this slightly to make it more precise than just
"Web-friendly":
AG003 Integration to the World Wide Web
The Web Services Architecture must be consistent with the current
and future evolution of the World Wide Web.
| AC010
AC010 is still linked from under D-AG003. However, it was folded under
D-AC011. There should be an editorial tweak here.
| D-AC011
| is consistent with the architectural principles and design
| goals of the existing(?) Web. These principles and design goals
| are roughly outlined in [TAGTOC], [AXIOMS], [WEBAT50K], and in
| [REST].
I believe that "existing" should be dropped, and maybe also "roughly".
"Existing" was however discussed at [3]. I believe that any work
happening at W3C is about adding a new functionality to the Web, and
that it emphasizes the need of doing this work in a consistent,
coherent and compatible way.
Editorial request: the references should be links to the reference
section.
| + D-AC011.2 recommends the use of existing Web technologies
| that adhere to the architectural and design principles of the
| Web and that provide clear functional coverage of the
| responsibilities and constraints for an identified
| architectural component.
That sounds right: if a technology exists, follows Web architectural
principles and fits one of our needs, then we should consider using it
as part of the architecture.
| o D-AC011.2.1 Uses a standard identifier technology (URI)
I believe that this one is unnecessary because:
- URIs are one of the core elements of the Web.
- AR009.3 covers this and even goes further.
| o D-AC011.2.2 Uses a standard transport/transfer
| technology
I am not sure what the CSF calls for. I am hesitating between
providing a standard interface to Web services as Web resources,
calling for the use of HTTP...
I looked for the history of the CSF[2] and couldn't find where it was
coming from.
I would suggest that the originator clarifies his intentions. If not,
I would be for dropping it: I don't feel that we need to expand on
what the Web architectural principles are.
| # D-AC010.1Each new architectural area has its
| representation normatively defined in a syntactic
| schema language defined in a W3C Recommendation
There was resolution at the face-to-face meeting about AC010.1:
AC010.1 Each new architectural area that has a representation SHOULD
be normatively defined using XML Schema.
| + D-AR011.1 WSAWG must closely monitor the deliverables of the
| TAG as they further refine and or document the architecture
| and design principles of the Web
The goal of the TAG[4] is to "document and build consensus around
principles of Web architecture and to interpret and clarify these
principles when necessary". Considering this CSF and in particular the
reference to [7], our task[6], and our relationship to the TAG[5], I
believe that this makes perfect sense.
I couldn't find any objecting to this[8]. May we agree on it?
I think that AC011 is lacking one subgoal to be complete. New
technologies recommended must be designed in a Web-friendly way. I
would therefore add (based on D-AC011.2):
D-AC011.3 recommends the design of new Web technologies that adhere
to the architectural and design principles of the Web to provide
functional coverage of the responsibilities and constraints for an
identified architectural component.
| D-AC021
| ensures device independence of Web Services.
The Web is a universally accessible space. This is why W3C has a
Device Independence Activity[9]. Coming back from Japan where wireless
devices are widespread, I believe that this CSF is important,
especially because memory-constrained, intermittently-connected devices
bring a whole set of particular requirements.
FWICT, this CSF is in draft status because it hasn't been discussed.
Any objections to adopting it?
| + D-AR021.1 Assumes no specific device or level of connectivity
| for clients or servers so that wireless, intermittently
| connected, mobile and strongly connected devices are
| supported.
Any objections to D-AR021.1?
| + D-AR021.2 Makes no assumptions about the utility or
| visibility of services based on user locality.
I am not sure about this one. D-AR021.1 should cover D-AR021.2. Or
maybe I didn't get it.
Can the originator please clarify the intent? If not, I would propose
dropping it.
| + D-AR021.3 Assumes a spectrum of device capabilities (from
| high end servers to handheld devices).
Any objections to D-AR021.3?
Regards,
Hugo
1. http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-arch-charter#arch
2. http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-ws-arch&index-type=t&keywords=D-AC011.2.2&search=Search
3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0278.html
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag
5. http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-arch-charter#internal
6. http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-arch-charter
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/toc
8. http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-ws-arch&index-type=t&keywords=D-AR011.1&search=Search
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/di/Activity
--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 09:58:52 UTC