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

RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps

From: Yin Leng Husband <Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:05:11 +1000
Message-ID: <E74B412A1B5FD211AD6C0000F87C38ADE66792@ozyexc1.itg.qvar.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dilber, Ayse, ALASO" <adilber@att.com>, Yin Leng Husband <Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Yes, I include interoperability across platforms/applications/programming
languages,
and going by the current definition of Web Services, interoperability will
be
via "vendor/platform/language-neutral data interchange" of messages "using a

rigorously defined message exchange pattern".

The boundary between the two groups is therefore that presented by the 
web service interface.

There are two aspects to each of the architectural and technology gaps,
depending on the interoperating parties.
One is where the interoperating parties are from two different standards 
groups, each formulating their own web services architecture and
technologies.
For this class of interoperating parties, by
- "architectural gap", I mean the gap caused by a difference in web services
architect of the two groups (e.g. difference in naming or identification
systems used).
- "technology gap", I mean the gap caused by a difference in the two groups'
technology that is layered over the architect.  E.g. each group may design
its own version of WSDL or its own discovery registry.

The second situation is where the interoperating parties are businesses or
organizations that want to collaborate on a work process that encompasses
more than the single business or organization.
For this class of interoperating parties, by
- "architectural gap", I mean the gap caused by missing pieces in web
services
architect of this group that prevents end user collaboration.
- "technology gap", I mean the gap caused by missing pieces in this group's
technologies that are layered over the architect that prevents end user
collaboration.  

Now that you have pointed out "technical interoperability requirements by 
standards-based remedies", I think the term "standards-based remedies" is
too open.  Who defines whose "standards" these remedies should be based on?

So I propose changing D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
"identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent interoperability;
 identify existing W3C technologies that support interoperability; 
and recommend formation of new working groups to formulate remedies for 
 filling the gaps".

The above hopefully will address Prasad's point.

Regards, 
Yin Leng 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO [mailto:adilber@att.com] 
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2002 11:17 PM
To: Yin Leng Husband; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps


What do you mean by "architectural and technology gaps" that prevent
interoperability?  Do you include interoperability across
platforms/applications/programming languages?  If so, since this seems to be
the charter of WS-I org., what are the boundaries between the two groups?
Do we mean technical interoperability requirements by standards-based
remedies?
 
Regards,
Ayse Dilber
AT&T
 -----Original Message-----
From: Yin Leng Husband [mailto:Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:22 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps



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".
 
 
 
 

Yin Leng 

 
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 23:47:40 GMT

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