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

RE: D-AG0007- reliable, stable, predictably evolvable - v0x1

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 01:22:55 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c1c815$2a32df50$52877ed8@amer.cisco.com>

	As usual good points. Have a few comments (again as usual :o)):

 | Stability of Architecture
 | -------------------------
 | 	Stability means a reliable C-set (see R2) does not change
 | arbitrarily.
 | To ensure that the architecture is stable, it should demonstrate the
 | following.
 | 	S1. WS-A will limit a new release of C-set to once in two
quarters, unless serious bugs appear.
 | 	S2. Only WS-A has the right to release new C-sets
	Possibly only W3C has the right to release new C-sets. 
	But this could conflict with the extension model. If a standard,
whose stability is considered by the intervals between C-sets delivered
by a specific WG, and if it needs to be extensible, we have some
conflicting requirements.
 | Predictable Evolution of Architecture
 | -------------------------------------
<snip .../>
 | 	PE1. The architecture has identified axes for evolution of the
 | architecture. 
 | 	For WS-A, a suggestion of axes are the following [2].
 | 		unique identification,  - URI/2nd order IDs/...
 | 		independent specification, - WSDL/vocabulary/ontology
	I assume you mean the D3 - Definition, description and discovery
 | 		interaction - XMLP/intermediary/collaboration/patterned
	There are many more axes like security, privacy, runtime
characteristics like QoS, reliability, et al, ...
Identification-D3-Interaction are required but not sufficient.
 | 	PE2. Each standard must be mappable to one of these axes. 
 | 	(I am inclined not to include a standard within the architecture
 | that is mappable to only two or more of these axes, because, 
 | then I almost tend call it an non-core standard, outside the scope of
 | 	PE3. The definitions of the architectural elements should be, as
 | as possible, devoid of jargons and technical terms that may be
irrelevant in
 | 10 years
	Actually I prefer the corollary. i.e. introduce and capture
relevant technical terms and jargons which will become normal vocabulary
in 10 years. Of course, all the new terms would be defined (amid
spirited discussions in the wg e-mails :o)). In some sense, that is what
architecture is all about - capturing the essence of current thinking in
the light of some new ideas. I am of the opinion that every generation
(or mini-generation) would add it's own new concepts/abstractions/ideas
which are captured in the new "jargons and technical terms". These are
essential for progress. So, my motto is, create more relevant jargons !
 | 	PE4. Extension guidelines should be specified for each standard.
	Again, remember, extensions *can* counteract the stability.
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 23:47:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC