Re: Web services architecture document discussion (continued from F2F )

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:36:22PM -0700, ECKERT,ZULAH (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> At our first F2F in San Jose we had a preliminary discussion on how the
> architecture would be represented (or what the metamodel would be). I
> believe the 4+1 View Model was suggested as one possibility.

Right, this is a commonly used model, particularly in CORBA circles
(RM-ODP, for example).  But Roy Fielding points out that it doesn't
describe the Web very well[1].  He suggests a data flow methodology,
in particular Jackson Systems Development.  I've checked it out, and it
seems pretty rigorous and appropriate, though I'd expect there'd be a
steep learning curve if we wanted to use it.

> The metamodel
> for the current document is unclear and I'm wondering if we should return to
> the metamodel discussion before continuing with (or commenting on) the
> existing document?

I would prefer that we proceed with an informal metamodel for the time
being, such as is used in the arch doc.  This would have at least two
beneficial effects;

- doesn't hold up important architectural work
- permits us to get a feel for the architecture so that we might
better evaluate metamodels further down the road

There is the risk that we might be missing some important aspect of the
architecture by doing this, but I hope we can all watch for that.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0023

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Sunday, 23 June 2002 22:27:37 UTC