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

RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable evolution

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:20:55 -0500
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296A61ED8B@bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <anne@manes.net>, <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>, <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
If you referring to the "web service or the reference architecture" dilemma; I think Chris has an action point to clarify this language in all the goals. At least that is what was suggested in the telecon and I believe Chris wanted a "hat-off" moment to address.

MikeM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
> Sent: March 14, 2002 04:46 PM
> To: Damodaran, Suresh; 'Hao He'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable 
> evolution
> 
> 
> When we say "reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of web
> services" are we talking about the services themselves or the 
> technology
> used to implement them, or perhaps the standards underneath 
> the technology?
> Perhaps we need to say, "reliability, stability, and 
> predictable evolution
> of web services technology" or "reliability, stability, and 
> predictable
> evolution of web services standards"?
> 
> Anne
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Damodaran, Suresh
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:08 AM
> > To: 'Hao He'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, 
> predictable evolution
> >
> >
> > Hao,
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hao He [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:32 PM
> > To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, 
> predictable evolution
> >
> >
> > I belive that the "Reliability, stability, and predictable
> > evolution of web
> > services" are more important and useful than those of the reference
> > architecture, so we should add it as a goal.
> > <sd>
> > I generally agree. I am unsure of what "stable webservice" 
> means, though.
> > What is it to you, and how is it different from "reliable 
> web service?"
> > </sd>
> >
> > It might also be desirable if a web service can be easily 
> evaluated from
> > consumers' point of view. This would allow 'natual selections' on
> > competing
> > service providers and service implementations.
> > Should this be a non-goal or part of the new goal?
> >
> > <sd>
> > It would make sense to add this as a goal if web services 
> world is seen
> > as an ecology, where Darwinian selections may occur. (I 
> have visions of
> > striped web services lengthening their neck and becoming tall web
> > services:-)
> >
> > Seriously, how would you word the goal statement?
> > "architecture has the goal of enabling selection of web services"
> > Note that the implications are profound - just as an example,
> > discovery of web services will immediately come under the 
> scope of WS-A.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Suresh
> > </sd>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:48 AM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Status: D-AG0007 - reliable, stable, predictable evolution
> >
> >
> > Goal:
> >     Goal statement "To develop a standard reference 
> architecture for web
> > services that is reliable, and stable, and whose evolution 
> is predictable
> > over time"  This goal has not been revised, and thus, stands.
> >     "Reliability, stability, and predictable evolution of 
> web services" is
> > noted in [1] as a non-goal, and perhaps
> >     should be added to our goals.
> >
> > A proposal was submitted to the WG [1], and was evaluated. 
> The proposal
> > included measures that
> > can be taken by WS-A to address reliability, stability, and 
> predictable
> > evolution through the formation
> > of C-sets, or "consistent sets" of standards within WS framework.
> >     A question was raised whether C-sets could stall 
> predictable evolution
> > [3].
> >     Similar question was posed in [2] in terms of extension.
> >     Ensuring "backward compatibility" of individual standards could
> > potentially address this issue [4]. This will also address the
> > "principle of
> > partial understanding" in [5].
> >
> > For other questions and responses, please refer to the 
> mails directly.
> >
> > Further, I was referred to [5] as a possible important 
> source. If anybody
> > has any other source,
> > please send them to me. A new rev of the proposal will be 
> made later in
> > light of the comments and [5].
> > Date TBD.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Suresh
> >
> >
> > [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0148.html
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0148.html>
> > [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0158.html
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0158.html>
> > [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0180.html
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0180.html>
> > [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0234.html
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0234.html>
> > [5]  <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html>
> > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 17:22:23 GMT

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