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

RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps

From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:59:05 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013f01c1c94f$6285f4b0$461ce8d8@beasys.com>
MessageI was wondering how this would come up...

What does it mean for the WG to recommend existing standards?  Would a W3C
Note (which isn't a standard) count?

What if some tweaking of the spec is required for standardization, say
converting soap-sec into ws-sec and changing the namespace name?  Is the WSA
group going to do the nuts and bolts dirty work on re-using existing stuff -
like writing conformance test suites, publication schedules, conversion to
xmlspec dtd etc.?  There's a fair bit of work just doing errata.  I would
think we don't want to burden the WSA with this.

I think that even if we find an existing spec that fits our bill, we're
going to have to charter up a WG to deal with it.

How about "Identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent
interoperability to formulate standards-based remedies;  formation of new
working groups to standardize new or existing specifications or
technologies." ?

Cheers,
Dave

  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Yin Leng Husband
  Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:08 PM
  To: Prasad Yendluri; Yin Leng Husband
  Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps


  This is a good point.  In fact, the charter says
  "The Working Group should also identify what existing W3C technologies
already address functions required by the architecture identified."
  I wanted to avoid a discussion over *whose* existing standards and
technologies at this point of high-level requirements
  identification.  Therefore I took the path that in order to identify gaps,
existing technologies would be flushed out during the process.

  Regards,
  Yin Leng




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
    Sent: Friday, 8 March 2002 11:33 AM
    To: Yin Leng Husband
    Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: Re: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps


    This is good point. However I think we should recommend existing
standards wherever available to avoid re-inventing. How about something on
the lines:
    "Identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent
interoperability to formulate standards-based remedies;  recommending
existing standards and technologies where available and formation of new
working groups where none available."

    Regards, Prasad

    -------- Original Message -------- Subject:  D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
          Resent-Date:  Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:14:38 -0500 (EST)
          Resent-From:  www-ws-arch@w3.org
          Date:  Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:22:11 +1000
          From:  Yin Leng Husband <Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com>
          To:  www-ws-arch@w3.org


     I've taken an action item to drive DAG0016- Technology Gaps requirement
discussion.
      The current proposed wording is
     "DAG0016
     [The Working Group will also act to] identify current gaps in
architectural interoperability and recommend standards-based remedies".

      As this architecture group is clearly chartered not to design the gap
technologies itself, I would like to suggest changing to"identify
architectural and technology gaps that prevent interoperability; and
recommend formation of new working groups to formulate standards-based
remedies".

       <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


    Yin Leng
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 18:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT