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

Re: D-AR003.1; wording re transport/transfer

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:17:42 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF75CE88A4.059EAE40-ON85256BFF.005951A4@rchland.ibm.com>

I recommend that we let the TAG decide for themselves if they
have any comments/feedback on our requirements, rather than second-guess
their response.

If they take issue, we'll hear about it and can address their concerns
as part of the process. We do need to get something published.

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

                      Mark Baker                                                                                                  
                      <distobj@acm.org>        To:       "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>                      
                      Sent by:                 cc:       www-ws-arch@w3.org                                                       
                      www-ws-arch-reque        Subject:  Re: D-AR003.1; wording re transport/transfer                             
                      07/23/2002 12:21                                                                                            

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > I just want it to say what we discussed, even though I still disagree
> > with it strongly, and would even more strongly disagree with
> > the revised
> > version.
> Perhaps the best way forward would be for Mark to pay careful attention
> the language in the actual WSA document as it evolves and help us draft
> language that reflects the concerns of his "constituency" rather than
> us to re-hash the requirements document.  In the end, it's the WSA spec
> people will pay attention to, not the requirements doc.

That's true, it's the architecture document that I'm most concerned
about.  If it's what we're going to be asking reviewers (read; the
TAG 8-) to focus on, then I'd be ok with that.  But if we're going to
ask the TAG to review the requirements document, then I'd request this
clarification be made.


Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 12:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC