RE: Device Independence, device, mobility, and wireless issues

We still don't have closure on CSFs for device related issues. D-AC004
covers platform and device independence as well as assumptions about
communications. It seems to me then that we haven't precluded the use of a
mobile device as a server. Including a sub CSF for this case seems
appropriate. It isn't clear that we have agreed that device related issues
can all happily live in D-AC004. 
 
However, if we can agree on covering device related issues in D-AC004, then
I would like to propose the following:
 
D-AC004 - as it currently is.
 
D-AC004.4 - Assumes no specific device, platform, or level of connectivity
for clients or servers.
 
(was D-AC004.4 from Sharad) D-AC004.4.1: Assumes no specific communication
mode so that wireless, intermittently connected, mobile and strongly
connected devices are supported.
 
D-AC004.5 - Makes no assumptions about the utility or visibility of services
based on user locality.
 
 
Comments?
Zulah
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Garg, Sharad [mailto:sharad.garg@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:45 PM
To: 'Doug Bunting'; Public W/S Arch
Subject: RE: Device Independence, device, mobility, and wireless issues


Doug,
 
I believe that network connectivity and mobility goals are not covered by
current device and platform independence goal. There was a short discussion
about mobility during the last F2F.  Zulah and I suggested the device
independence and mobility requirements in [1].
        
I agree with you that mobility and intermittent connectivity should be
another goal, and I think you have articulated the mobility aspects pretty
well here.
 
Here I am suggesting 2 options that cover some aspect of mobility: 
 
1)  the D-AC0004 with a slight edit

            D-AC0004 : ensures platform and device independence of Web
Services in a way that does not preclude any programming model nor assume
any particular mode of communication between the individual components or
devices that may be mobile or intermittently connected
 
2)   We add another sub-goal D-AC0004.4 as follows:
 
        D-AC0004.4: Assumes no specific communication mode so that wireless,
intermittently connected, mobile and strongly connected devices are
supported.
 
Regards,
Sharad
 
 
[1]      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0036.html>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0036.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iplanet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:17 AM
To: Public W/S Arch
Subject: Re: Device Independence, device, mobility, and wireless issues


Mark and Joel, 

I did not mean to imply I thought mobile servers were unimportant,
irrelevant, impossible or anything else slightly negative.  The emphasis of
my second question was on "explicitly" (in my feeble mind). 


I don't believe either of you has addressed my first question: Are the
following items candidate goals / requirements for our architecture?  I
probably should also ask, are any of these covered by our existing goals
(such as platform or device independence)?  I don't believe so. 


*	intermittently connected participants, 

*	utility or visibility of services based on locality or 

*	varying routes (and other issues) in multimodal interaction with a
single "service" (probably something at a higher level than a single web
service, I'm guessing). 

thanx, 
    doug 

Mark Baker wrote: 


On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:37:13PM -0700, Munter, Joel D wrote: 
> While today's mobile devices might not have the capacity to run "web
sites," 
> future mobile devices will. 

For more than a year now, my company has built a Web server for the RIM 
Blackberry devices.  It hosts "web sites" such as my calendar, to-do 
list, and notepad (they all have URLs that you can type into your 
desktop browser).  Our Web server also creates other resources on the 
device, such as chat rooms. 


It's not particularly difficult to build a Web server for these devices. 
Even the mid-range devices can support them. 


>  Today's higher end mobile devices may already 
> contain sufficient resources to host simple web services.  Future devices 
> will only expand this.  Simply put, yes I believe that we want to include 
> the concept of "mobile servers" within our requirements. 


Agreed. 


BTW, is there a reason why this discussion isn't on www-ws-arch? 


MB 
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. 
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com 
http://www.markbaker.ca <http://www.markbaker.ca>
http://www.planetfred.com <http://www.planetfred.com>