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

RE: Let us clothe the Emperor in Blue Jeans (was: Emperor has no clothes (Observations on the Web Services Definition)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:32:50 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E402AACFEA@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:41 AM
> To: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Let us clothe the Emperor in Blue Jeans (was: Emperor has no
> clothes (Observations on the Web Services Definition)
> 

> 	You have some interesting points. I think the main thrust is the
> point that the WS-Arch team should focus on "infrastructure" 
> and nothing
> above that layer. I assume that means the Transport, Routing and
> Packaging, security, interoperability, reliability et al. 

In the spirit of "Extreme Specwriting," there's something to be said for
coming up with a very crude sketch of a strawman architecture quite 
early in the game, i.e., before the requirements document is complete.
That will let us get a picture of what pieces are absolutely central
[the emperor's underwear?  sorry!], what pieces are important,
and what are nice to have.

Also, we need to come to some consensus on what it means to put 
something in our architecture.  

> I assume ontologies is outside the scope, what about
>  orchestration,intermediaries et al.

"Ontologies" is a nice example.  If, for the sake of argument,
we decided that this is in-scope, what would that mean for us?
I HOPE it means that we would draw a box saying "ontology", draw
some lines to the other components that could use a common
web service ontology, refer to the various people working on this,
and prioritize the demand for a Web Services Ontology WG compared
to all the other demands we make note of.  That doesn't seem too
onerous even to me (being rather skeptical that any "ontology" 
effort is a productive use of the W3C's resources).   On the
other hand, someone else might have a much more challenging conception
of what it would mean to put Ontologies in our architecture.
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 08:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:55 GMT