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

FW: Status of D-AG0014, coordination / liaison outside W3C

From: Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:38:21 -0600
Message-ID: <E0995D588DC3D211BB8D00805FFE353907358B8D@ic.ic.grainger.com>
To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iPlanet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:04 PM
To: Austin Daniel
Cc: 'Public W/S Arch'
Subject: Re: Status of D-AG0014, coordination / liaison outside W3C


Daniel,

We seem to be moving away from consensus on this goal.  I originally
suggested
that D-AG0013 and D-AG0014 seemed to overlap and have a fuzzy distinction
between them.  We may have slightly more open communication (better chances
of
realizing our aims) with W3C WG's and the TAG than outside standards bodies
but
the goal remains identical.  Hugo added a very useful point about "liaise"
being
out of scope for our group in general.  Going a bit further, most of the
technical goals for the artefacts produced by this group have corollaries or
explicit statements around using non-W3C technologies where appropriate.
(We
for example have our own "rule of consistency", D-AG0008.)  This again
reduces
our need for a separate D-AG0014.

The questions seem to be:
1. whether "liaise" is in scope,
2. whether working with outside groups is sufficiently distinct from working
with W3C for its own WSAWG goal, and
3. whether such work is distinct from recognizing available technologies
from
outside groups for its own WSAWG goal.

Oh, and the minor one I raised in my mail below:
4. whether "other groups doing Web services related work" in the current
text
for D-AG0013 should be clarified to specifically encompass those groups not
part
of the W3C.

I lean towards "no" on all of these points but would like to hear from the
rest
of our group.  Perhaps this will only be decided on a call?

thanx,
    doug

"Austin, Daniel" wrote:

> Greetings,
>
>         Goals 13 & 14 were originally separated into two for precisely the
> purpose of indicating the distinction you mention, i.e. that of
> distinguishing between our relationship to groups within W3C and those
> without. I think that it is incorrect to consolidate the two goals into
one.
>
>         I specifically chose two separate action verbs for these two goals
> carefully, "co-ordinate" to refer to our actions with respect to other W3C
> groups and "liase" with respect to those outside of W3C. The reason I
chose
> to separate these two goals originally was because our posture toward
them,
> and our end goal in each case, will be very different.
>
>         In the case of groups within W3C, we can and must co-ordinate our
> activities. We can communicate freely with these groups as equals in the
W3C
> enterprise. We have specific rights of review on the products of other
> working groups, defined by the W3C process document, and in the case of
any
> conflict, we have a well-defined means of resolution. And we may have
> confidence that any such conflict *will* be resolved, even if it requires
> mediation by the Director, because one of the "Prime Directives" of W3C
> itself is that the W3C should not publish mutually contradicting
> specifications. This 'rule of consistency', while it is not written in
text
> in any specific W3C document (to my knowledge) is a very strong
overarching
> principle and exceptions to it are frowned upon, to say the least.
> Activities such as the W3C TAG are devised precisely to prevent such
> conflicts.
>
>         With respect to groups outside of W3C, no such restriction holds.
We
> may, in case of conflict either of vision or detail, attempt to liase with
> these groups, offer our opinions, present our arguments, and hope for the
> best. However, there is no method of binding arbitration or even any rule
> that says that these groups have to consider our pleas. This works both
> ways, in that groups outside W3C can expect no more than consideration
from
> our own group, and there is no overarching consistency principle for
> standards created by different standards bodies. There is no ISO to
provide
> mediation in the case of conflict, as there is with ANSI, as an example.
> Therefore, our posture in this case is very different, and our ability to
> influence the outcome much less.
>
>         I see these activities as being very different, and would not like
> to see them merged. We are under an obligation to be consistent with other
> W3C groups, while we are not with groups outside W3C. Let's work hard to
> ensure consistency within W3C, make a best faith attempt to do so with
> groups outside it, and continue to make this distinction.
>
> Regards,
>
> D-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iPlanet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:22 PM
> > To: Chris Ferris; Public W/S Arch
> > Subject: Status of D-AG0014, coordination / liaison outside W3C
> >
> >
> > Chris et al,
> >
> > With very little discussion, we seem to be closing on words from Hugo
> > and David Orchard that cover both D-AG0013 and D-AG0014.  Technically,
> > D-AG0014 should be considered closed and subsumed by the
> > following words
> > for D-AG0013:
> >
> >    co-ordinate with other W3C Working Groups, the Technical
> >    Architecture Groups and other groups doing Web services related
> >    work in order to maintain a coherent architecture for Web services.
> >
> > Since we've had so little discussion, this position should be
> > considered
> > tentative.  Does anyone want (for example) to clarify "other groups
> > doing Web services related work" to specifically encompass those not
> > part of the W3C?
> >
> > thanx,
> >     doug
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 14:38:58 GMT

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